Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HARROGATE STRAY BILL

SCARBOROUGH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

HASTINGS PIER BILL

STREATHAM PARK CEMETERY BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 23 May at 7 o' clock.

LINCOLN CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 21 May.

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 23 May.

ROYAL HOLLOWAY AND BEDFORD NEW COLLEGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Cereals

Mr. Fallon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total cost to public funds of supporting cereal prices in the current financial year.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): It is estimated that support for the cereals market will cost the Community 2,325 mecu in 1985.

Mr. Fallon: Is that not a scandalous waste of public resources? Does my hon. Friend agree that, besides encouraging price restraint, it is now imperative to reduce or transfer the cost of disposing and storing the lower quality grains?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that at present we are debating the price review negotiations for

this year, and a key part of the United Kingdom's approach has been to urge the maximum application of the guarantee threshold to cereals. The reason for that is to reduce the cost of support altogether.

Mr. Torney: Instead of wasting money on cereals in this way, will the Minister seriously consider sending cereals completely free of charge to the starving nations of Africa, such as Ethiopia, and to other parts of the world where people are starving? It may cost more money, but at least it would save starving people.

Mr. MacGregor: The Community is embarking on a major programme of food aid in relation to cereals this year, and the British Government have been taking a lead. There was a fairly large programme last year. However, to think that that is a way of disposing of surpluses and of dealing with that problem is the wrong approach. The real need is to get the cereal support price down. Simply to dispose of all surpluses free of charge would cost a great deal more than the figure that I gave.

Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend referred to the talks going on now in Brussels. Does he agree that today's news from Brussels is absolutely disastrous, that Britain's efforts to try to bring about price cuts in cereals have gone out of the window, and that we shall merely store up bigger trouble and surpluses if the rest of the Community has its way?

Mr. MacGregor: We cannot say that the news is disastrous, because we do not yet know what it is. The negotiations are continuing. It is true to say that the full application of the guarantee threshold will not be negotiable this year, but price restraint is the main item on the table for dealing with cereals this year, and we have allies in our approach to getting price reductions in cereals.

Mr. John: What is the likely carry-over of cereals in storage in the United Kingdom this year and next year if, as many forecast, there is another bumper cereal harvest this summer? Does the Minister think that taxpayers' patience can be stretched as much as storage facilities to harbour such unwanted grain?

Mr. MacGregor: It is difficult to say what the carry-over will be, but there will clearly be one. The hon. Gentleman will know that the United Kingdom has had considerable success in exporting grain this year — a total of about 4·6 million tonnes. However, I do not disguise the fact that the size of the cereal surpluses is a major problem. It is one of the main discussion points — indeed, one of the main stumbling blocks— in the present negotiations.

Research and Development

Mr. Jackson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the amount of money spent on research and development in the United Kingdom agriculture industry per £100 of income compares to other European countries.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Although only partial information is available, it is clear that expenditure on publicly funded agricultural research in relation to farm income in the United Kingdom compares favourably with that in other European countries.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. She will be aware of the controversy surrounding the statements on this subject in the annual review of research and development published by the Government last year. Does she agree that such uncertain comparisons are an inadequate basis for making Government decisions?

Mrs. Fenner: There are many alternative measures on which to base comparisons, and different bases produce different results. However, it is clear that United Kingdom agricultural R and D has been well supported and that, even after reduction, it will stand comparison with that of our competitors:

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister concede that that statement will sound extremely hollow once the Government implement the full cuts that they propose in the general research, advisory and scientific programme, especially in Scotland, where so much of the territory for farming is in less-favoured areas, such as the Highlands? As this reduction, following the reduction in capital grants, will have a severe effect on farming, will the Government rethink the policy?

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates. There is no reduction in 1985–86, and the planned expenditure for 1986–87 will be reduced by £10 million, of which the Ministry's share will be about £8·25 million, within the general research, advisory and scientific programme. We should remember that the national spend for research and development on agriculture, fisheries and food was £204 million, of which agriculture spent £160 million. That puts the reduction in perspective.

Mr. Lyell: When my hon. Friend examines future spending on research, will she remember how cost-effective it can be? The National Institute of Agricultural Engineering has developed the Paraplough, the Dynodrive cultivator and the hay mower/conditioner, which have helped the turnround in our exports of agricultural engineering products. Is this not money well spent?

Mrs. Fenner: We have asked the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food to advise us, and it will undoubtedly advise on the wise use of resources to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. It would not be helpful to speculate on the outcome of that advice.

Mr. John: When will the staff at the scientific and research establishments know their fate? Does the hon. Lady agree that the fact that the priorities board has not yet said where even one cut will fall is liable to cause the maximum uncertainty and, therefore, anxiety in research establishments?

Mrs. Fenner: The Agricultural and Food Research Council is our major contractor for commissioned work, and we are working closely in collaboration with it. It is represented on the priorities board.

Price Review

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the price fixing negotiations in Brussels.

Mr. Latham: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest position regarding the Common Market price negotiations.

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I are currently attending the Council of Ministers in Brussels, from which I have just returned, and where negotiations continue. That is why my right hon. Friend is unable to be here this afternoon, and he apologises to the House for his absence. They are proving to be exceptionally difficult and protracted negotiations. A main stumbling block continues to be Germany's attitude to the proposed cuts in CAP support prices for cereals.

Mr. Maclennan: Is not the damaging delay in reaching agreement on prices due to the fumbling ineptitude of the Government in failing to prepare the ground adequately and sufficiently in advance, and especially in failing to recognise that across-the-board institutional cuts at a level which the Government have been pursuing are unlikely to be achieved and will only alienate our Community partners? Does the Minister agree that the only hope of reducing expenditure while maintaining farm incomes equitably is through quantitative restrictions on price support for cereals, as on milk?

Mr. McGregor: Obviously we would have preferred and earlier settlement, and we have urged all the way through for a settlement as quickly as possible. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is more important to have a delayed settlement that is right than a hasty settlement that is wrong.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the United Kingdom Government have not been preparing the ground for the cereals negotiations. We have been taking the lead on many of the major issues in these negotiations, and in particular we have argued for price cuts.
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point about alienating our Community partners. We are getting increasing support for our approach to price reductions on cereals, but we have to face the fact that many member states have a different view.
Finally, it has become clear in the debates that a considerable number of important member states are totally opposed to quotas for cereals.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware of the disturbing rumours from the Milk Marketing Board that the 1 per cent. cut in the co-responsibility levy might not be achieved after all? Will he assure our totally frustrated milk farmers that in these negotiations he will insist on that cut?

Mr. McGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that we are battling extremely hard-for United Kingdom interests, of which this is one. One or two member states have been urging a delay in the reduction of 1 per cent. in the co-responsibility levy, but we have been resisting that strongly.

Mr. Weetch: The Minister said that one of the points of contention was the price of cereals. Does he realise that artificially high prices for cereals have caused enormous environmental damage to the country? Will our negotiators do all that they can to persuade the EEC that it would be far better to devote some of the money to an integrated countryside policy than to propping up grain prices and creating surpluses that nobody can buy?

Mr. McGregor: The hon. Gentleman should recall that the United Kingdom Government, initially on their own, took the lead in getting a conservation and


environmental element into the Community proposals on the structure programme. We have gradually got more support.

Mr. Watson: Does my hon. Friend agree, at least in principle, that any attempt to reduce the present cereal surplus by means of price restraint alone would inevitably involve substantial reductions in price, the main burdens of which would fall upon the more marginal grain producers, such as those in Yorkshire and the south-west?

Mr. MacGregor: It is difficult to give the House any final sign of what is happening in the negotiations, because they shift from time to time and the package changes as the negotiations proceed. Although price reductions are the main element in what both the Commission and a considerable number of member states are urging this year, there are other ways in which cereal problems can be dealt with, including the proposal to drop the breadmaking wheat premium, which is currently being negotiated, and one or two other matters, such as changes in the carry-over payments, which would also have an effect.

Mr. Deakins: What is the size of the gap between the cost of the Commission's original proposals for 1985 and the upper limit under the financial guidelines for agricultural expenditure?

Mr. MacGregor: For 1985, the limit, I think from memory, is 29,955 billion ecu. The current proposals are within that. There has been general agreement, very much at our insistence, that any other proposals now being considered will be financially neutral. In other words, at the end of the day we should stay within that limit.

Sir Hector Monro: Contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), will my hon. Friend accept that most of us agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his team are doing a first-class job in Brussels? Secondly, does he agree that if there is any one issue over which my right hon. Friend should succeed, it is maintaining the beef premium to livestock farmers in the west and the north?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that there are many other issues, besides surpluses, of great importance to us in these negotiations, and one of them is the beef variable premium scheme. The House knows that every year we have a problem even getting that subject on to the table. We are making considerable progress, largely because of tremendous efforts by my right hon. Friend, but it is too early to predict the outcome.

Mr. Nicholson: Have the Minister and his right hon. Friend accepted the compromise proposal put forward in the negotiations to allow the Republic of Ireland an additional 58,000 tonnes of milk this year as a retrospective adjustment for last year? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many of us would not find that compromise acceptable? Will he bear in mind the serious position of Northern Ireland dairy farmers vis-àa-vis their counterparts in Great Britain?

Mr. MacGregor: It is difficult to comment with any finality on what is happening in Brussels. For all I know, the compromise proposals may be changing at this very minute. The Irish Government have argued that there was

a statistical mistake in quotas last year and have pressed for an additional 58,000 tonnes. They appear to have the support of nearly every other member state. We have made it clear that we are very much opposed to that, but I cannot predict the outcome.

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that there is not a significant cut in cereal prices this year? Is it not patently obvious to everyone that there will not be any proper reform of the CAP, and that in those circumstances the Government would not dream of coming to the House and asking for an increase in own resources for the European Community?

Mr. MacGregor: It is important to bear in mind that the figure of 19,955 million ecu—not 29,955 billion ecu as I said earlier; I expect that tiredness caused me to get it wrong—is the one to which we are working in the negotiations. We are determined to ensure that the financial agreements in the package are honoured.

Mr. John: What are the latest proposals for the sheep variable premiums? Is the ceiling originally proposed by the Commission still being maintained, and does the Minister accept that the success or failure of the talks will be measured by what happens on cereals?
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm certain figures? On production last year, would not an 8 per cent. reduction in the guarantee threshold be justified? The Government cut the figure to 5 per cent. because of the legal limitations in the CAP. The Commission originally proposed a figure of 3·6 per cent., but its current proposal is for a cut of less than 2 per cent.—which is less than one quarter of that which would be justified by the amount of grain grown in the CAP during the past year. Would it not be a total dereliction of duty if the Council of Ministers agreed to that?

Mr. MacGregor: On sheepmeat, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that a number of issues are still being discussed, and that is a rather important element of the final stages of the negotiations.
The limit on the guarantee threshold for cereals was negotiated three years ago, when it was agreed to have a ceiling in any one year of 5 per cent. That is why we had to argue for 5 per cent., although 8 per cent. would have been the figure had there not been a ceiling.
We have been taking a strong position on cereals during the negotiations. However, it is necessary to have the support of a sufficient number of other member states and the Commission to achieve any given figure. I believe that our firm stance has led to the whole question of where the cereals figure ends up being still very much in debate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are member states that would like to have no reduction at all.

Exports

Sir Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to allow greater freedom for United Kingdom exporters to export their products throughout the European Community.

Mrs. Fenner: The Government continually seek to ensure that our exporters of agricultural and food products can compete on fair terms in markets throughout the European Community.

Sir Peter Mills: While understanding what my hon. Friend is saying, and bearing in mind that there are problems with milk imports and disease, may I ask whether she agrees that 'it is about time we made a determined effort to have far more freedom and to stop all the restrictions on British food exports to the Community — especially the clawback on beef, and even the sheepmeat regime? Is it not about time that the subsidy that the Republic of Ireland is receiving for its exports to this country was ended?

Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State comment on the Eire position. Exports have risen since the sheepmeat regime was introduced and they are now back to the level of the mid-1970s. I agree that the clawback still inhibits us from taking full advantage of what should be a common market, and we are continuing to press for improvements.

Liquid Milk

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects a decision from the European Court on the dispute over the importation of fresh liquid milk into the United Kingdom from the continent.

Mr. MacGregor: If the Commission application to the court goes ahead in accordance with its recent announcement, I would expect a decision in about a year.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend continue his heroic efforts, by every legal means open to him, to prevent this importation? Will he bear in mind, however, that the United Kingdom stands to gain more than any other member of the Community from the strict application of the rule of law within the Community? Will he remember that the doorstep delivery of milk has an importance going well beyond the dairy industry? Will he, therefore, consult his Government colleagues to ensure that our system of doorstep delivery continues, even if we eventually get imports of liquid milk?

Mr. MacGregor: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that we have told the Commission that, in our view, the best course is to seek a Community-wide solution via a directive on heat-treated milk. In the absence of such a directive, we consider that our public health controls are necessary, and we shall, therefore, be defending the case.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we are among the member states which are persistently arguing that the Community rules and regulations must be observed by all member states. Therefore, we must do the same ourselves if we are to succeed with that argument.
The best way in which doorstep delivery can be maintained is by keeping the excellent service and by our dairy industry remaining highly competitive. The House will recall that we had a considerable debate about imports of UHT and sterilised milk, when many fears were expressed about doorstep deliveries being undermined. That has proved not to be the case. Because of the competitiveness of our industry, there have been very few imports of that kind.

Mr. Torney: As the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has repeatedly informed me in recent months that there is a surplus of milk in the United Kingdom, why should there be any question of importing fresh milk into

this country? I urge the Minister to bear in mind the danger, to which reference has been made, to the distribution of milk to the doorstep and the consequent danger to employees in the industry. In other words, is he aware that if fresh milk is allowed to be imported our already massive unemployment will be made that much higher?

Mr. MacGregor: Our concern about imports of this sort must, of course, be in relation to public health controls. However, if there is a Community-wide directive, as for all other products in the Common Market, there is free trade, provided that the public health controls are met. I repeat that the greatest strength of our dairy industry is its competitiveness, and the greatest hope for the doorstep delivery of milk is that that is what the consumer will continue to want. So far, all the fears about imports of other forms of milk have proved to be unjustified.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that, whatever the European Court may say, there will always be legitimate doubts about the health and hygiene standards of milk that may have been transported over long distances from warmer climates? May we have a categorical assurance that the Government will take all necessary steps to protect the health of our consumers, doorstep deliveries of milk and the interests of British dairy producers?

Mr. MacGregor: I have made it clear that we think that our controls are justified in the absence of a Community regime; and we shall do all that we can to persuade the court, if it comes to a court case.

Southall Horse Market

Mr. Greenway: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to visit the Southall horse market to study the implementation of his voluntary code on markets; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Fenner: I have no plans at present to visit the market at Southall. However, I am kept informed of conditions there by my veterinary staff, who frequently attend to monitor and encourage compliance with the code.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend accept from me that conditions at the Southall horse market have improved considerably, but that the handling, stabling and transport of horses still often leaves much to be desired and that considerable cruelty is involved? Will she pay an unannounced visit with me to the market on some occasion?

Mrs. Fenner: Delighted as I would be to pay unannounced visits to anywhere with my friendly hon. Friend, I must remind him that legislation already exists to protect horses in markets, in trnasit and during loading and unloading. It is a matter for enforcement by the police and local authorities. I hope that it will be reassuring to him to know that the Farm Animal Welfare Council is considering the welfare of horses in its review of markets. We look forward to studying the council's recommendations.

Agricultural Grants

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for agricultural grants in the countryside, in areas outside national parks and sites of special scientific interest, have been refused by his Department on environmental grounds for each year since 1980.

Mrs. Fenner: I regret that the Ministry does not keep records in a form which would readily identify the number of applications refused grant and the reasons for such refusals.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that that is a major defect in any system that is geared to enhancing what she says is her Department's duty to have regard to conservation? Until local authorities and others can he prenotified—I hope the hon. Lady can say that this will be possible under the new structures regulations that are about to be implemented—conservation in the countryside will not be something that her Department can honestly say it is trying to uphold.

Mrs. Fenner: Obviously, we shall have to ensure that any capital grant paid is for investments compatible with good conservation in the areas which are designated as environmentally sensitive and which my right hon. Friend has ensured are in the structures programme. Prior notification is one possibility to which we shall have to give consideration.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend convinced that since 1980 no environmental damage has been done by grant-aided agricultural works, or does her reply suggest that we should move to a system of prenotification of agricultural works that attract grant-aid?

Mrs. Fenner: Prenotification is an enormously expensive objective. During the past few years there has been a much wider appreciation of conservation in agriculture. I trust that my hon. Friend is well aware of the initiatives in which my Department has been involved during the past months in improving conservation in agriculture. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to recite those initiatives now.

Mr. John: Does the hon. Lady agree that, whatever the costs of prenotification-1 disagree with the costs she suggested—it will be necessary for people to be able to object to the granting of agricultural grant where damage is caused to the environment? What alternatives is the hon. Lady considering?

Mrs. Fenner: The extension of prior notification was recommended by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment. The Government will publish their reponse to that report shortly. I cannot, therefore, comment at present.

Cereals

Mr. Yeo: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to establish a joint producer-Government-backed organisation to help the promotion of cereal exports.

Mr. MacGregor: The promotion of cereals exports already falls within the scope of Food from Britain, which is a producer-Government-backed organisation. I would be prepared to consider proposals for improvements in the

existing arrangements for the promotion of cereals exports if they were practical and realistic and had wide support from the cereals sector.

Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the export credit arrangements are satisfactory in time for the start of exports from the 1985 grain harvest?

Mr. MacGregor: Last December we made consider-able improvements in the export credit arrangements. During a meeting with the trade I said that I would be happy to consider any practical ideas that could bring about further improvements. Our export growth in cereals has been substantial in recent years. That is a remarkable achievement. It is clear that a great deal of growth is taking place.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister comment on the financial crisis suffered by Food from Britain? Does he accept that massively subsidised cereal exports to Russia and elsewhere are not only an insult to our taxpayers but an injury to our cereal-consuming industries? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that any new export promotion initiative by the Government on cereals also benefits the British cereal-consuming industries in the livestock sector?

Mr. MacGregor: Food from Britain already has a funding programme from the Government. The time is not right to review where Food from Britain should go. There is a continuing programme. As the House will be aware, we are opposed to any special arrangements for the export of agricultural products to Russia. The Community has a considerable surplus of cereals and the House has been expressing anxiety about that this afternoon. It is important that we should be able to export that surplus. With regard to the livestock sector in the United Kingdom, one of the reasons why we have been urging a reduction in cereal support prices is to improve the horn-corn balance and help the livestock sector.

Veterinary Inspection Centres

Mr. Freeman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on his proposals for closure of veterinary inspection centres.

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend has received 118 representations to date on his statement of 15 April about the future of the veterinary investigation service.

Mr. Freeman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the important Moulton inspection centre lies in my constituency of Kettering? Has he got the message that the farmers in my constituency are worried about its possible closure? Will he therefore confirm that he will consider all sensible proposals, including the privatisation of the Moulton centre?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware that the centre is in my hon. Friend's constituency, but, as the report made clear, it receives a low level of submissions and serves a relatively small catchment area. That area can easily be served by the centres at Cambridge and Sutton Bonington. My right hon. Friend is considering all the representations that have been made. He is meeting representatives of the main interested bodies and will be hoping to complete consultations within the next month or so, after which a final decision will be made.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Given that timetable, can the Minister guarantee that he will come to the House with these decisions before we rise for the summer recess?

Mr. MacGregor: I should like to consult my right hon. Friend on that, because some decisions must await the outcome of financial studies which are currently being undertaken and which require careful consideration. They could take a little longer than the month or so that I talked about earlier.

Mr. Colvin: Can my hon. Friend confirm that part of his proposal is to close three centres that serve the south of England—including the Itchen Abbas centre which serves my constituency—and to replace them with a single, larger, central unit? Will he consider enlarging the Itchen Abbas centre, which would be simple, rather than closing it? It is ideally situated on a green field site. If it were closed, obtaining change of use planning permission would be extremely difficult. The only alternative would be to destroy it, and that would be a terrible waste of a public asset.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend so that they can be taken into account in the consultations in which he is now engaged.

Nutritional Food Labelling

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will invite the London Food Commission to participate in consultations on nutritional food labelling.

Mrs. Fenner: Our consultation document on draft guidelines for nutrition labelling of food has been circulated for comment to over 700 organisations. The London Food Commission is amongst this circulation and we shall welcome any response that it cares to make.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I accept that the Minister wants to improve the linkage between food and health, although we might disagree about the speed of action. Does she accept that the new body in London is plainly a broadly based and well funded body which will be able to contribute to making people understand the benefits of nutritional food labelling and help in the educational process? Will she involve it in the closer consultations in which she is involved with organisations such as the Consumers Association?

Mrs. Fenner: That organisation now has our document, and it has been invited, with the other 699 organisations, to make any comments that it wishes. I am sure that, as a responsible body, it will do that.

Mr. Aitken: Will my hon. Friend explain why the nutritionists and other experts who serve on committees to do with food labelling, such as the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, are required to sign the Official Secrets Act? Is food labelling not a subject where maximum publicity is needed, not maximum security?

Mrs. Fenner: The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I shall draw his attention to my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Deakins: Can nutritional food labelling, valuable as it is of itself, adequately compensate the British consumer for the ever-rising cost of food products in the Common Market?

Mrs. Fenner: Fat labelling is a recommendation of COMA. There are other questions on the Order Paper today which may refer to food prices.

Sir Peter Mills: When my hon. Friend is considering these problems and the future of labelling, will she turn her attention to the unfairness of confining this to certain food products such as milk and meat? If it is successful for those products, why should it not be successful and wise for all products? Will it not have a damaging effect on the dairy industry?

Mrs. Fenner: Fat labelling is a recommendation of COMA and will be on all products. It is the nutritional labelling which will be voluntary. We are considering the best format which would be meaningful to the consumer. Nutritional labelling was not a recommendation of COMA whereas fat labelling was.

Mr. Home Robertson: We welcome the Government recommendations so far as they go to achieve a healthier diet for our people. Would the Minister accept that if these recommendations are to be of any value, food labelling must be both uniform and easily comprehensible so that when consumers go to the shops they know what the code means?

Mrs Fenner: We are involved in a survey, in collaboration with the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association, to discover exactly the perception of consumers to labelling. I agree wholly with the hon. Member that the labelling must make sense to consumers if they are to accept advice.

Food Prices

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what proportion of food price increases since 1975 have been the result of higher real prices paid to farmers; and what proportion can be attributed to higher food processing and retailing costs.

Mrs. Fenner: Apportioning increases in food prices between prices paid to farmers and the costs of retailing and distribution can be done only in broad terms. In the decade since 1975, agricultural product prices have risen by 122 per cent., while retail food prices have risen by 166 per cent. Associated with this slower growth of agricultural prices, the cost of basic food raw materials now accounts for 44 per cent. of consumer spending on food compared with 50 per cent. 10 years ago.

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend may be aware that in real terms the cost of food, taking the farmgate price received by farmers, has fallen substantially in real terms. What expectation has she that the current common agricultural policy proposed price cuts will result in substantially reduced production, for which she no doubt hopes?

Mrs. Fenner: I am not hoping for substantially reduced production, but clearly realism in the common agricultural programme means that we need to consider surplus production.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the moderate rise in food prices compared with the


retail prices index is helped greatly by the variable beef premium? Will she encourage my right hon. Friend in no way to barter that valuable instrument in exchange for anything else?

Mrs. Fenner: I can only reiterate to my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends need no encouragement to defend British interests in this matter.

Surplus Food

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the total amount and value of surplus food stored in the United Kingdom; and what is the total amount currently stored in the European Economic Community.

Mr. MacGregor: On 30 April intervention stocks of beef, breadwheat, butter and skimmed milk powder in the United Kingdom were just over 321,000 tonnes, valued at some £476 million, using the buying-in prices valid at that date. The volume of Community stocks of these products and sugar at the latest available date was just over 7 million tonnes.

Mr. Canavan: Would the Minister care to estimate how much of that food will eventually be consumed by human beings and how much will simply rot away? Is it not an absolute crime against humanity for the Government to support a high-price, high-waste common agricultural policy, especially at a time when literally millions of people in the Third world are in danger of starving to death?

Mr. MacGregor: Neither this House nor the Council of Ministers is under any illusions. It is the firm resolve of the United Kingdom Government to reduce the surpluses. Nevertheless, a considerable proportion of the surpluses will be consumed by human beings, or by animals which will ultimately be consumed by human beings. A considerable proportion will be consumed within the Community, through exports, or through the substantial programme of food aid.

Mr. Maclean: While the surpluses seem large in tonnage terms, will my hon. Friend put the whole business of surpluses into perspective and tell the House exactly how many days of normal supply for the British housewife the surpluses represent?

Mr. MacGregor: Clearly, it varies, but for butter it is between 150 and 200 days' supply. There are some cases in which it is vital to reduce the surpluses substantially. In other cases, moderate surpluses are desirable for the safety of food stocks.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Prime Minister take time during a busy day to study press notices of an enterprise by Shell

in the North sea involving the investment of £2·5 billion, many ancillary contracts for British firms, and jobs for 6,000 people? Will she comment on that enterprise?

The Prime Minister: I confirm what my hon. Friend said. I understand that it is an enterprise which will provide about 6,000 jobs and that the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1983 probably contributed to the decision to go ahead with this development. It is good news and I wish the enterprise well.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Prime Minister take time today to look at the Hansard reports of our economic debates in the House in the past two months, from which she will find that about 25 per cent. of the contributions from the Government Benches have been critical of the Government strategy? Does not that, together with the establishment of dissident groups on her own Back Benches, indicate the total failure of the Government's policies in dealing with unemployment?
Will the Prime Minister stop carrying on thinking that there is no alternative and start—[Interruption.] Will she start to listen to the proposals that are being made by groups on her own Back Benches and by some on the alliance Benches, and drop the absurd notion that there is no alternative?

The Prime Minister: No, I shall not stop carrying on. I shall carry on.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as a proportion of the population, the number of people in work in Britain is the highest in the European Community?

The Prime Minister: The proportion of the population of working age in work is 66 per cent. in Britain. That is as high as in the United States and higher than in France and Germany. It is one of the highest percentages in Europe.

Kampuchea

Mr. Allen Adams: asked the Prime Minister if the Government have any intention of recognising the regime in Kampuchea.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We recognise the state of Cambodia, but in common with the overwhelming majority of the international community will not countenance having relations with the present regime in Phnom Penh, which depends on the Vietnamese occupation forces for its existence.

Mr. Adams: Does the Prime Minister not think that it is gratuitously offensive to the vast majority of the British people that we recognise at the United Nations the representatives of a regime which murdered 2 million of its own people? Is the bogus excuse still that the north Vietnamese or the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia? If that is the bogus excuse, is the Prime Minister aware of the United Nations 1948 convention on genocide? We cannot argue — [Interruption.] We have obligations under international law to put a stop to genocide.

The Prime Minister: The Government withdrew formal recognition from the Pol Pot regime in December 1979. In accordance with the recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly credentials committee, we continue to accept the representatives of the democratic parts of Kampuchea as representing the Cambodia seat.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: While admitting that the regime we recognise in Kampuchea has a deplorable record, may I ask whether the Prime Minister agrees that the regime in Phnom Penh, backed by the Vietnamese, has committed every crime under the sun and is the enemy of our friends in that part of the world?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The Vietnamese forces are still in occupation. They have caused the flight of many refugees into Thailand. We give as much support and help as we can to those refugees. We shall not recognise the puppet regime in Phnom Penh, which is upheld only by the Vietnamese occupying forces.

Mr. Parry: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Parry: In view of the wide divisions in her party, will the Prime Minister stop shedding crocodile tears, and will she state today that she is concerned about unemployment? In view of the formation of the new Centre Forward group—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It is disintegrating. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what hon. Members are laughing at, either.

Mr. Parry: Those baboons over there may be shouting at—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw.")

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that word.

Mr. Parry: I withdraw.
In view of the formation of the Centre Forward group and the statement by Mr. lain Picton, chairman of the Tory Reform Group, will the Prime Minister now state whether the Lady is for turning, and if not, why not?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether I picked my way through that complicated question. The name "Centre Forward" was, of course, first coined by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who wrote a book called "Centre Forward — a Radical Conservative Programme". Hon. Members can see that book, which I have here. It was written in 1978, and I am delighted to find that my hon. Friend has so many new supporters.

Mr. Roger King: Following the good news from Shell, has my right hon. Friend had the time to reflect on the good news from British Leyland, which, in the first quarter of this year, had achieved its highest output for 10 years, with 98 per cent. availability?

The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to hear of great success in our motoring industry. I hope that it will steadily increase the proportion of the car market that is taken by firms in this country. I congratulate the company.

Mr. Kinnock: Why have crimes of every kind increased substantially since the Prime Minister took office in 1979? What is she going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: Crime has been going up both in this country and in other countries. This Government, unlike previous ones, have substantially increased the

numbers in the police force—by some 12,000. We have also increased the amount of equipment that is available to them.

Mr. Kinnock: The police are not convinced by that. Who does the right hon. Lady expect to believe it?

The Prime Minister: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might actually be swayed by the facts on the numbers of the police.

Mr. Kinnock: rose —

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Kinnock: This right hon. Gentleman and, plainly, the police are more impressed by the 30 per cent. rise in serious crime since the right hon. Lady became leader of the Government. Will she now answer the question? Why is the crime rate so much higher? What is she going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: I repeat the reply that I gave. We have increased the numbers in the police force. We have also increased, as we did during last year, the actual amount of resources available. If there should be any under-recruitment in local authorities, I urge them to come up to establishment.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my right hon. Friend noted that in the year to March wages rose by 9 per cent.? Does she agree that if those in work take more of the national wage bill it must be bad for the unemployed? Will she therefore re-emphasise the need for wage restraint in any sensible attack on unemployment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I saw those figures today. On average earnings, the underlying rate is still 7½ per cent., but my hon. Friend will also have heard today the news and wisdom that has come out of Southampton docks. Six months ago those docks were not working at all. The news came today that they have realised that if they are to get back to work they must reduce the wage bill. By doing that they have turned the position around and are now very successful. As my hon. Friend has said, wage costs must not rise too high if we are to get more jobs.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Prime Minister note that in yesterday's elections in Northern Ireland about 10 per cent. of those who wished lawfully to cast their votes were prevented from doing so by the terms of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act of this Session? Does she agree with the opinion held in all quarters of the Province that that statute cannot remain unamended?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the purpose of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 and the local elections order of 1982 was to strengthen safeguards against personation, to counter a significant increase in electoral abuse in recent years. We shall, of course, be reviewing the way in which the legislation works and, in particular, the usefulness of the various documents specified for identification. In response to the right hon. Gentleman, we shall certainly look at the way in which the Act has worked.

Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently I shared a platform with an employee of the Greater London council whose principal contribution to our discussions was to advocate riot as the only means


whereby the ethnic minorities in this country could achieve their objectives? Does my right hon. Friend not think that that is one of the contributions to the rising crime rate?

The Prime Minister: I hope that almost everyone in the House accepts that the law must be obeyed, and we are all responsible for helping in its enforcement.

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. McKay: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the situation of my constituent E. G. Moxon, and thousands like him, who went out under the job release scheme only to find that this year his annual increase is only 60p due to favourable developments in personal tax allowances? Has not the scheme turned out to be a con trick in that those low-paid people have paid for an increase, which they were not supposed to do? Will that not be detrimental to people wishing to go out under the scheme?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the job release scheme was a good one, allowing people to retire early and releasing jobs for people on the unemployment register. If there is a particular difficulty or a special case in relation to tax I hope that the hon. Gentleman will write to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacKay: Has my right hon. Friend had time during her busy day to read the totally independent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General stating that the National Health Service has never been more flourishing? Does that not show that the Opposition's scurrilous rumours about the future of the Health Service are utterly dishonest?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the Opposition do a lot of the talking, but we have delivered the best National Health Service that this country has ever known, with more doctors and nurses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Use them!"]—dealing more efficiently with a greater number of patients. [Interruption.] The Opposition may shout, as they usually do, but they cannot overcome the facts. Under this Government the National Health Service is the best ever.

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the point of order that I raised yesterday regarding early-day motion 686—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order was to me, so it is my responsibility and not that of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wondered whether the right hon. Lady had had time in her busy day to read that point of order. As Reuters has apologised to me for

the inaccurate report, and as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has graciously withdrawn the early-day motion, will the right hon. Lady now have the courtesy to apologise for, and withdraw, the remarks that she made without any justification at Question Time on Tuesday?

The Prime Minister: I said at Question Time on Tuesday:
Those remarks must have been deeply wounding and we on these Benches reject them absolutely."—[Official Report, 14 May 1985; Vol. 79, c. 169.]
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is withdrawing the remarks—[Interruption.]

Mr. Foulkes: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given an opportunity to reply.

The Prime Minister: I understand that my hon. Friend has withdrawn the remark and, of course, I therefore do. I hope that the hon. Gentleman now thinks that that airstrip was a very good investment—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ryman: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order only if they relate to Question Time and only if they are not an extension of Question Time.

Mr. Ryman: Only two days ago you ruled on a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman's point of order relates to what happened two days ago, I shall take it later.

Mr. Stephen Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As someone who accompanied the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to the Falkland Islands, I can confirm that everything he has said in the House is correct and that if statements were made on Tuesday impugning his conversations in the Falkland Islands they are wrong and ought to be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I heard the exchanges yesterday and the points of order were addressed to me. I called the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) today. I heard exactly what the Prime Minister said, and she did withdraw.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) specifically asked the Prime Minister to read the exchanges which took place on Tuesday. She has obviously read them and must know that my hon. Friend was misreported. Will she now have the courtesy and grace to withdraw her remarks?

The Prime Minister: I thought that I had withdrawn —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I do. I do so now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] — and of course, I apologise.

Railway Workshops (Job Losses)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: (by private notice)asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the announcement of job losses in British Rail Engineering Ltd.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): At a meeting of its joint consultative committee on 15 May, the management of British Rail Engineering Ltd. informed the unions that it had reluctantly come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to make further reductions in manpower within BREL. A year ago, the management had already informed the unions at the equivalent meeting of proposed reductions. Its latest evaluation of work load, however, shows a further reduction of 13 per cent. in repair work. The company has therefore concluded that it needs to reduce manpower by a further 1,300 over the next 'two years.
It may be helpful to the House if I explain these work load projections. The demand for railway repair and maintenance has declined because of British Rail's decision to invest in new rolling stock. In particular, investment in new diesel multiple units with higher performance means that the same frequency of service can now be provided with fewer trains, and each of these fewer units requires less maintenance. Major programmes of refurbishment, particularly the stripping of asbestos from older vehicles, are also nearing completion, and this has been a significant part of the recent work load.
In the light of this reduced demand, British Rail and BREL have, with considerable regret, decided that they must propose to the unions a sizeable rundown of the Glasgow Springburn works and some further manpower reductions at other works, particularly Doncaster and Eastleigh. Most regrettably of all, they have decided, after considering the position carefully, that there is insufficient work to maintain the BREL works at Swindon after March 1986.
I know that these proposals will be a hard blow to the communities concerned, particularly to Swindon, but British Rail and BREL have considered the matter carefully and concluded that a reduction of capacity of this scale is unavoidable. There will, of course, be an opportunity for all the possibilities to be re-examined fully in the consultations with the employees which now follow BREL's announcement.
British Rail and BREL will do all that they can to find alternative work for redundant employees by offering opportunities to transfer to other works and by encouraging business development and job creation at both Swindon and Glasgow.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister not aware that it is a disgrace to come here and make announcements that represent a drop of 18·8 per cent. in the work force by the end of March 1987 —1,000 more jobs lost than was proposed by British Rail to the unions last year—and the total closure of the Swindon works?
Why is it that, when the Ayrshire electrification programme is to be completed, the Glasgow works is to be reduced, because there is to be no more refurbishment of DMUs, to the level of a mere regional workshop? How does the Minister explain to the trained engineers who are

to lose their jobs the reason for reducing the amount of maintenance that British Rail has undertaken throughout the regions since the Government came to power? Why has there been no estimate of the work load to the end of the corporate plan? Is it the intention of the Government to proceed even faster with the cuts that were proposed in the Serpell report? That appears to be the reason why there is no clear indication of how much work will be left at the end of 1987.
The Serpell report made various suggestions for BREL: that it should be forced to remain within British Rail, and not compete for work outside: that it should be privatised—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady but this is a private notice question, not the response to a statement.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I want to make it quite clear to the House that what the Government are insisting on is a rundown in the existing stock in BR. Will the Minister tell us whether it was ever made clear to the electorate in the constituencies that are to lose a highly skilled work force what the real effect of Conservative government would be on employment in BREL workshops? How does the Minister defend the fact that none of his efforts to obtain contracts overseas have been sent to British Rail, where they are desparately needed? Will he ensure that the new contracts go to BR and not to foreign workshops? If not, how dare he try to defend cuts in necessary jobs?

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Lady asked whether I knew of the job losses. Yes, of course I know. I am painfully aware of the job losses and deeply concerned about them. However, the reality is that when British Rail invests in new diesel multiple units and new rolling stock, that rolling stock requires much less maintenance than the old rolling stock. For that reason, the more investment it undertakes in new rolling stock, the less work there is in the old refurbishment and maintenance work which has been going on.
I shall give the House the facts. The average replacement rate is two new vehicles for three old vehicles. Each vehicle needs 30 to 40 per cent. less annual BREL maintenance than the older ones. Therefore, overall, to have a new fleet means a 50 to 60 per cent. reduction in the maintenance work which follows. That is an inevitable consequence. Nothing that the hon. Lady can do by blustering to the House alters the fact that the work load does not warrant the maintenance of the entire system as it now stands.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the closure takes place, it will increase male unemployment in my constituency and the sorrounding areas by up to 50 per cent? Is he further aware that the Swindon railway works has been run down for more than 20 years, during which time there have been both Labour and Conservative Governments? Nothing has been done to reverse that trend, which was brought to an end yesterday.
In the circumstances, will my hon. Friend press British Rail to seek redeployment for as many of the work force in the railway works as can be achieved?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman will be redeployed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a serious matter for the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend press British Rail for redundancy payments on the same level as those granted this year to people in other nationalised industries? Will he press British Rail to increase the sum available through British Rail Holdings—the enterprise agency recently created in my constituency — to redeploy workers and to create new businesses there to take up the work force who will be made redundant following the announcement? Will he further press British Rail to offer the Swindon works on the open market, as a going concern with a large pool of highly skilled engineering workers who would be a proud addition to any company in the world?

Mr. Mitchell: Last May the forward projection showed an anticipated work force at Swindon of just under 700. Those jobs are now going as a result of yesterday's announcement. Some of the men will be relocated within BREL, as a result of natural wastage throughout the organisation. My hon. Friend will be aware that, whatever Government were in office, it would have made no difference to the need to balance the capacity and the demand within BREL.
Redundancy payments and the funds available to help create work in those areas will be pro rata to those at Horwich and Shildon. My hon. Friend asked me to press the management of British Rail to offer the works as it stands on the open market, and I shall certainly draw that suggestion to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I seek assurances from the Minister that British Rail will not put any orders for new locomotives overseas, and that any new stock will be built by British Rail engineering workers in my constituency and throughout the country. Will the Minister come to Springburn and see the impact that the decision has had on my community? Since the turn of the year we have had three major closures involving redundancies, yet we are only in the month of May. If the Minister seriously believes that he can find alternative employment, why was he not having discussions with the unions a year ago, and looking for alternative work then, instead of waiting until the announcement was made?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of British Rail's purchases of locomotives, possibly from overseas. I must tell him that British Rail is in a competitive market. It has no monopoly, and is in competition with air and coach services and private cars. It must give its customers the best service and value that it can. Therefore, it must buy as competitively as it can. British Rail and I hope that it can do so from British engineering.

Mr. James Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that this evolution was almost inevitable from the steam age to the diesel age, because the carriage works were started in the early part of this century? Is it not clear that the decision had to be made one day? With the inevitability of the decision, will he ensure that every sympathetic consideration is given to the employees who will be made redundant? Will he ensure that British Rail realises how emotive the issue is and, in every case, will he bring it to the attention of the board that those employees must receive every consideration for the many years of loyal service that they have given to British Rail?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the valuable service given to British Rail, especially by the workers at Swindon, who had an especially good productivity record. I wholly support the point that he made. When the BREL works were closed at Shildon and Horwich, I explored with British Rail every way of helping to create jobs. Of course, I shall do the same for Swindon.

Mr. Stephen Ross: In view of the deplorable state of much of the rolling stock in the southern and eastern regions, where we are constantly told that, due to a lack of rolling stock, trains will have only four or eight coaches, it is hard to believe the Minister's statement. The rolling stock on the Isle of Wight goes back to 1924. Is the Minister sure that he is not destroying a railway industrial base which, in three or four years' time, we shall desperately need to produce the rolling stock that I believe is needed now? Is he sure that we will not be importing it from America?

Mr. Mitchell: I have to say that Swindon is net geared to the sort of work which the hon. Gentleman describes. There is no intention to close the works at Eastleigh— [Interruption.] There is absolutely no intention to close the works there. There has been a small reduction in the work force, which is deeply regretted. The precise programme for the refurbishment of Southern region's rolling stock is a matter for the management of British Rail, not for Ministers.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my hon. Friend recognise the excellent work that has been done at BREL and at British Rail workshops in Derby, especially the tremendous efforts made by management and men, many of whom are my constituents, to modernise the works and improve productivity? Does he agree that the action taken by BREL workers in other parts of the country—to go on strike—is exactly the wrong approach, for if we are to win more customers, we need a work force that is not only competent, but reliable?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely coma. BREL can be proud of the way in which it has succeeded in recent months in winning orders in open competition. Indeed, it has just won the first competitive contract for freight wagon repairs, for which 13 companies had tendered. That fully bears out my hon. Friend's point: that BREL has become an efficient operation with an efficient work force and can compete successfully.

Dr. John Marek: Can the Minister demonstrate to the House that he is not acting like a modern Pontius Pilate, and tell the House what he proposes to do and what measures he will take to help BREL to compete in the export market and to regain some of the export orders that it has lost in recent years?

Mr. Mitchell: It is not for politicians to undertake the work of manufacturing and exporting — that is for BREL. I have told BREL that I am available to help it in any way that I can in support of its export programme. It has had a considerable number of export inquiries for the railbus and the international coach and we shall do all that we can to help it succeed in that way.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Does my hon. Friend think that the Caley works at Springburn, Glasgow, where a number of my constituents work, will have a viable future with only 460 employees? Is he satisfied that the work load of BREL is shared fairly


throughout the United Kingdom? Can he assure me that the BREL management is attaching adequate priority to the important job of winning vital export orders?

Mr. Mitchell: On my hon. Friend's point about the future of the Glasgow works and whether the number of employees will be viable the work fulfilled in the past at the Glasgow works is changing. However, I have every reason to believe that the numbers that have been projected will be enough for a viable future for the works. As to the share of the work, it is not a case of sharing it fairly but of allocating it within BREL's management to where it can be done most efficiently and cost-effectively.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that, if British Rail places a major order for locomotives abroad, he will be coming back to the Dispatch Box to announce further redundancies and closures in BREL? Will he also acknowledge that, if such orders are placed abroad, he will be putting a large knife through the heart of some of Britain's biggest locomotive manufacturers?

Mr. Mitchell: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point; that is why it is so necessary for the British firms that manufacture such products to do so as cost-effectively and competitively as their competitors elsewhere. On that basis, British Rail will order, and will be delighted to order, from British firms.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is but another example of the many that we have had, and will yet have, of the private and public sectors doing away with jobs because of increased efficiency and increased technology? That is not the Government's fault, but is my hon. Friend aware that the Government must be concerned with how we re-allocate our employment resources, so that, either by reduction in hours of working or years of work, or by earlier pensions we can make up for the jobs that are being lost month by month and year by year?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is correct. Increased efficiency often reduces jobs, but a huge British Rail investment programme stretches out ahead of it. In the next five years, we expect some £2,200 million to be in invested by British Rail, which will create many jobs.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) about the division of work? Does he not know that allegations were made to me by the trade unions at Springburn two months ago that those works did not get a fair share of the work coming from the Scottish area of British Rail, never mind the work coming from other areas? Will he look at that, because Springburn has borne an extremely heavy proportion of the redundancies involved?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will know that there were certain difficulties at Springburn last year. I shall draw his comments to the attention of BREL management, but it must be for it to decide where it can best carry out the work that it has to do both cost-effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does this Minister, like the rest of those on the Tory Front Bench,

glory in putting people on the dole? When will this bleeding stop? Is it not just what the railwaymen have been saying? What does one expect from this Government, with a Prime Minister who will gallivant all around the world but does not have the decency to travel on a British train?

Mr. Mitchell: I bitterly resent the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I or any other Minister glories in people being put on the dole. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) will confirm that I have been as anxious as anyone to try to retain the jobs involved. It is force majeure. The hon. Gentleman should know that if there is no work available, factories cannot be kept empty.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members with a direct interest in this matter.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be common sense—I know that the Government are a little short of that—to bring about a movement of heavy freight from road to rail, thereby generating demand and doing a service to the environment and the country?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible point, and I shall make two points in reply. First, the Government already give grants to seek environmental improvement by the transfer of traffic from road to rail. Secondly, nothing has given a larger boost to the movement of goods by road than what happened on the railways during the miners' strike.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Here is another sensible point. When the Minister answered my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), did he reflect whether the French railways would ever place an order for engines outside France or whether the Japanese railways would ever place an order outside Japan? What other countries can he name, which have major railway engineering industries, that place orders outside their own industries?

Mr. Mitchell: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have called for encouragement and help for BREL in its exporting work. If other countries manufactured everything that they wanted themselves, there would be no exports for Britain. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Now that the Minister has expressed his grave concern and sorrow at the predicament of the engineers at BREL, may I remind him that the recent publicity engendered through British Rail by Mr. Bob Reid about the possibility of placing orders for 1,500 locomotives abroad could mean the loss of £1·5 billion-worth of business? I have been in correspondence with the chairman on behalf of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers reminding him of the difficulties that that sort of policy would create.
Does the Minister recognise that such action would not only affect the workshops that he has mentioned today, but, if we do not have a share of the orders it will affect GEC, Hawker Siddeley, Metro-Cammell and BREL? They will then come to the Minister to tell him that they have massive unemployment. What will the Minister do about it?

Mr. Mitchell: It is not for me to do anything about it —it is for the firms in British industry to be competitive and to win orders.

Adjournment (Debates)

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday, 24 May up to eight Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 MAY — There will he a debate on a Government motion on the report of the Auld committee of inquiry into proposals to amend the Shops Acts, Command No. 9376.
TUESDAY 21 MAY AND WEDNESDAY 22 MAY —Remaining stages of the Transport Bill.
At the end on Wednesday, motion on the Royal Ordnance Factories Trading Fund (Revocation and Repeal) Order.
THURSDAY 23 MAY—A debate on the Commission for Racial Equality report on immigration control procedures on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 24 MAY-It will be proposed that the House should rise for the spring Adjournment until Monday 3 June.

Mr. Kinnock: I appreciate that the Government have problems with their mutinous ranks, but as the debate on the Auld report next Monday clearly involves matters of personal conscience and conviction, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why the Government are not observing the honourable convention of the House and permitting a free vote among Conservative Members on the substantive motion, as we on these Benches shall be doing? Will he discuss the matter with the Patronage Secretary and come to a more agreeable and reasonable position on Conservative Government whipping for next Monday?

Viscount Cranborne: What about your whipping?

Mr. Kinnock: As ever, ours is perfectly satisfactory. [Interruption.] I am sure that there are certain Conservative Members whom the Government wish would not turn up.
The right hon. Gentleman deserves thanks for at last arranging for a debate to take place on Thursday in prime time on the report of the Commission for Racial Equality. Is he aware that the decision to hold the debate on a motion for the Adjournment is objectionable, as it is a matter of some controversy and great importance, and that it would be far better for hon. Members on both sides for the subject to be debated on a "take note" motion, which could be subject to amendment?
Will the right hon. Gentleman speak to the Home Secretary and ensure that he speaks in the debate on Thursday, as it would be unacceptable if, on a matter of such significance, the Home Secretary was again to dodge his responsibilities?

Mr. Biffen: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that good and cordial relationships exist between the Patronage Secretary and myself, although the right hon. Gentleman, as a trade unionist, will know that it proceeds on a certain demarcation basis—I do not guide him on whipping and he does not guide me on a number of my responsibilities.
I will only comment—it is the bromide that one usually uses on these occasions—that my right hon. Friend will have heard what has been said.
I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the form of the debate on the report of the Commission for Racial Equality and the suitability of the "take note" resolution procedure. Perhaps we can discuss that further through the usual channels, as can those who will take part in the debate.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What reason have the Government for expecting that the private Member's Bill, the Rent (Amendment) Bill, which they are hoping will receive its Second Reading on the nod tomorrow, will reach the statute book this Session?

Mr. Biffen: I do not know, but I will look into the matter and be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Latham: When shall we have a clear and definitive statement from the Minister for Health about the latest position on getting an appeals system in place to deal with the limited list of drugs? The matter is becoming extremely urgent.

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the force of the point that my hon. Friend Makes and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Leader of the House knows that I speak as chairman of the Co-operative parliamentary group in the House; I declare that interest. Is he prepared actively to persuade the Patronage Secretary and his other colleagues to think again about the three-line Whip that has been imposed for Monday's debate? What representations has he had on the matter from Conservative Members?

Mr. Biffen: I have cultivated a great innocence about whipping and I intend to keep it that way.

Mr. Richard Tracey: As my right hon. Friend knows, we are now into local enterprise week. Is he aware that yesterday, on an Opposition motion on business and growth, there were at times only two Labour Members in the Chamber and that at another time no members of the Liberal party or of the Social Democratic party were present? Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to organise an action replay of that debate so that Opposition Members can display some genuine credibility rather than just platitudes about the matter?

Mr. Biffen: For it to be an appropriate action replay, it would have to take place in Opposition time.

Mr. Max Madden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's announcement today that they are to give £250,000 to the Bradford disaster appeal — an action which was urged on the Government on Tuesday by the Leader of the Opposition —will be most welcome in Bradford and throughout the country? Now that the Prime Minister has had a further opportunity for reflection and discussion, will he urge her to make an early statement, certainly before we adjourn for the recess, about what contribution the Government will give to Bradford City football club for the rebuilding of Valley Parade?

Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge with gratitude what the hon. Gentleman says about the contribution of £250,000

which has been announced today. I shall look into the other point that he makes and refer it to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Government have taken over a private Member's Bill to promote Sunday trading, which was defeated by the House, whereas the Government have declined facilities for the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, which received the overwhelming support of the House?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is very perceptive in political matters and I am saddened that he has overlooked the fact that on Monday we shall be debating not legislation but a report.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Following the publication of the results of the opinion poll in the Daily Telegraph yesterday, and recognising that a system of proportional representation assists parties which trail in some places, would it not be in the interests of the Leader of the House to organise an early debate to enable hon. Members to consider the reform of our electoral system based on proportional representation?

Mr. Biffen: We shall bear our short-lived adversity with dignity and courage.

Mr. W. Benyon: What action do the Government propose to take on the latest report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which has just been published?

Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend reminds the House, that report has only just been published. It is important for hon. Members to have an opportunity to reflect on its interesting range of proposals, and doubtless in due course we shall have a debate.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In view of the bureaucratic nonsense that has emerged in relation to limited list prescribing and the bureaucratic tangle of the appeals procedure, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for my Generic Substitution (National Health Service) Bill, which is due for its Second Reading and which would get the Government off the hook, as it would still leave the clinical freedom of doctors to prescribe what they want to prescribe and at the same time save £200 million of National Health Service resources?

Mr. Biffen: It is a beguiling invitation for the Government to adopt a piece of private legislation, but one which I believe might be controversial hi current circumstances. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to permit me to rest on the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon).

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: When may we have a debate on the police, particularly with reference, first, to the question of missing children—as I told my right hon. Friend last week, more than 4,100 children went missing in the Metropolitan police area last year—and, secondly, to police operational methods? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1984, in the London area alone, there were five fatal accidents and 43 serious injuries in such accidents involving police answering emergency calls? Does he agree that it is time that we had a full debate on the police?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a matter of considerable interest but I must be disappointing in my


response and tell him that there is no immediate prospect of Government time for such a debate. However, he will have noticed that there will be no fewer than eight Adjournment debates available on 24 May.

Mr. Chris Smith: Has the Leader of the House had time to read early-day motion 672, in which there is an overwhelming expression of feeling by hon. Members on both sides of the House that there is need for an increase in the secretarial and research allowance available to hon. Members, and particularly to Back Benchers?
[That this House believes that, in order to carry out their responsibilities to their constituents and to play a more effective role in the legislature, it has become urgently necessary for honourable Members to have, as a minimum requirement, the resources to employ a secretary and a research assistant paid direct by the Fees Office; and expects Parliament to provide these resources as a matter of urgency for every honourable Member who wishes to make use of such facilities.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available for us to discuss the matter so as to take the view of the House, especially as there is such clear feeling on it among hon. Members in all parts of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am well aware of the terms of the motion and the names appended to it. I must point out, however, that the House fairly recently took a view on this matter, and there. I must rest my comments.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time for a debate soon on the workings of the Lloyd's Act 1982, which gave powers of self-regulation to part of the London insurance market? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are disturbed by certain features of the Lloyd's scene, including the apparent lack of zeal in pursuing frauds and lack of adequate investor protection safeguards? There is concern also about the use of the immunity clauses in the Lloyd's legislation which allows the council of Lloyds to have immunity from paying damages in lawsuits. Can we investigate these matters before a great national asset's reputation is damaged further?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has made a fair point, but I must counter it with the observation that, in the near future, there is no likelihood of Government time being made available to debate the matter. I must say what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) — that there will be eight Adjournment debates on 24 May.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House be a little less flippant about the voting arrangements for the debate on Monday on Sunday trading? Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many people want to know why the Labour Benches will have a free vote while the Tory Benches are under instructions from the Prime Minister's Office through the Chief Whip to vote in favour of Sunday trading? Does that not require some explanation? Will the right hon. Gentleman put it to the Prime Minister that she should make an open statement to the House next week so that at least the Church of England and all the bodies interested in these matters fully understand what is happening next Monday in the House of Commons?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary will have heard those points.

Mr. John Stokes: As the Government appear to be looking forward to a classless society, may we debate this fascinating subject? Will my right hon. Friend not be too hard on the upper classes and the landed interests who, in spite of some recent lapses, have made a great contribution to this place?

Mr. Biffen: I have some difficulty in answering my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps he will point out to me privately the catalogue of negligence and oversight by the Government which has led him to make this observation.

Mr. John Ryman: Will the right hon. Gentleman again consider whether to provide time to debate the closure of Bates pit in Northumberland, where 1,700 men are going to lose their jobs? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—he did not appear to be aware of this last week when he rejected my application—that the National Coal Board in the north-east of England has deliberately refused to adopt the pit review procedure on closure, having unilaterally broken that agreement, and has dishonestly withdrawn guarantees to the NUM about the life of that pit which it gave as recently as January 1984? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are 29 million tonnes of workable coal in that pit which the NCB, for political reasons, refuses to work?

Mr. Biffen: I do not endorse the hon. Gentleman's strictures on the NCB. I shall certainly refer his point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to explain in great detail the restructuring package on teachers' pay that he would feel able to commend to his Cabinet colleagues so that there is greater understanding by moderates in the teachers' unions of the type of restructuring that would command support within the Government?

Mr. Biffen: I should like to be as generous as I can to a repentant sinner, but I think that the best way I can help my hon. Friend—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Not repentant—he never joined.

Mr. Biffen: I would not look to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to be an authority on that type of dissent, unless he has now cornered for himself the position of authority on all types of dissent! I think that I can best help my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) by referring his points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye): When can the House debate and vote on the issue of televising Parliament? This would be an excellent opportunity to make Parliament more accessible to the British public and to highlight both the splits within the Conservative party and the so-called official Opposition's abject inability to provide credible alternatives.

Mr. Biffen: This is a serious subject, and its timing is a serious factor. This is not enhanced by the hon. Gentleman's trivialising comments on either the Opposition or the Government. I assure the hon.


Gentleman that this matter will be proceeded with. We shall have to make a judgment which is largely related to what is happening in another place.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the article in tonight's London Standard entitled
Wets rat on their sewer
which refers not, in this case, to his colleagues but to other hon. Members who throughout the week have endured horrible physical conditions in the Cloisters? Wetness underfoot has meant that some of us have had to wear wellingtons. Others have had to bring in nosegays because of the stench. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some time for the House to debate the adequacy and inadequacy of Members' accommodation. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available as soon as possible for such a debate?

Mr. Biffen: As a one-time occupant of the Cloisters, I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has been considering the problem of floods in the Palace of Westminster, and its review is progressing well.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I join the call for a free vote on the motion on Monday to take note of the Auld report. Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that this is a matter of conscience and ascertain whether the House can have a free vote on the Second Reading of the Bill which will be introduced on that subject?

Mr. Biffen: I assure my hon. Friend that I have absolutely no difficulty in passing on that message to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's recently reviewed supplementary benefit regulations for the homeless, which force people to move every four weeks from area to area, is especially punitive to the mentally ill? Although the Government admit that they do not know the number of people in this category, I believe it is likely to be about 50,000 or 60,000. Should not Government cash be made available to build proper adequate housing for this unfortunate group so that they can be given the necessary care, support and help? This is especially important for those who are homeless but are not sufficiently ill to require hospitalisation. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this serious matter is a suitable subject for an early debate in Government time?

Mr. Biffen: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is one of the many matters that probably call for a debate, but I think that he should try his luck in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Peter Pike: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the opening comments by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) —in response to the Adjournment debate on Monday this week on the economic divide between north and south? The Under-Secretary of State said that the subject needed "more time". Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Government to provide time to debate this important subject and reveal the action they propose to take to solve the problem? Will the right hon. Gentleman

use his best diplomacy, in which we all know he is very capable, to persuade the Prime Minister to be present during that debate? The right hon. Lady believes that it is an alleged rift, and does not recognise that it is real.

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry that I must be disappointing in my response and say that I do not envisage any prospect of Government time being made available for an early debate. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's topic to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 684 about flooding in the Cloisters, which has been signed by a number of hon. Members?
[That this House deplores the massive penetration of water into the lower Cloisters on the night of 12th May; believes it to be offensive to the Members whose inadequate accommodation has been so damaged; further believes that the dampness, discomfort and bad odours should be removed as soon as possible; and also believes that it is yet another example of the warped sense of priorities that such inadequate accommodation is offered in the first place to the elected representatives of over a quarter of a million people.]
Does he believe that, in relation to the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the House should seriously debate the provision of accommodation and facilities that are available for hon. Members? If hon. Members are to represent their constituents properly, without relying on a private income, they need the facilities in which to do so. It is a serious matter. The flooding in the Cloisters this week is but an example of the problems that many Members face.
This evening's report in The London Standard misquotes the space available. I understand that the office of the Leader of the House is about 350 sq ft, whereas most hon. Members occupying desks in the Cloisters have 20 sq ft in which to work. Does he not think that that is just another example of inequality in this building?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir. When I look at where I now work and where I used to in the Cloisters, I realise that it has made it all worth while. I wholly understand the seriousness of this problem, but I think that, in the first instance, we should await the report of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee which is now considering the problem.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If we ever get round to having the debate on proportional representation suggested by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), will the Leader of the House take into account the fact that it would be a different debate from those that we have had in the past? Representations are now being made by members of the alliance that, although they are in favour of proportional representation as a whole, they are not altogether too keen about it in relation to Orkney and Shetland and to Caithness and Sutherland because they are not sure that they can get the 50 per cent. necessary to take them over the top. Is that not another example of alliance hypocrisy —it is in favour of something in principle but does not want it to apply to everyone.

Mr. Biffen: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I look to the day when the Bolsover-North Shropshire axis will


become a more recognisable factor in politics. He and I can expect the great party of principle to be sullied by more practical considerations as it gets nearer to the fruits of office.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to inform the hon. Member that I shall take points of order in the normal order after the next statement.

Public Order Law

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the review of public order law.
The Government are today publishing a White Paper announcing the conclusions of the review, which was commenced in 1979, and which I have conducted in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland. In conducting the review we have taken into account the lessons to be learnt from the varying forms of major public disorder in recent years. We have also considered carefully the response to the 1980 Green Paper on the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation, the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, Lord Scarman's report on the Brixton riots, and the Law Commission's proposals for the codification of the common law public order offences.
The rights of peaceful protest and assembly are amongst our fundamental freedoms: they are numbered among the touchstones which distinguish a free society from a totalitarian one, but these rights, fundamental though they are, have never been regarded as absolute.
The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, in the article guaranteeing the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, recognises that it may need to be restricted by law for the prevention of disorder and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Even so, any limitations on the rights of peaceful protest and assembly should be imposed to the minimum extent necessary to preserve order and protect the ordinary citizen. That has been our approach in this review.
Most of the present law relating to these matters is either to be found in the Public Order Act 1936 or derives from the common law. The 1936 Act was passed to deal with a particular problem of the day: the threat to freedom posed by the Fascist use of intimidation and violence. It is hardly surprising that since 1936 different problems should have come to the fore and that the rights of the citizen should need protection from altogether different sorts of threat.
None the less, the review has revealed no yawning gaps in the law. It is also important to bear in mind that even where there may be a theoretical case for change, there is no point in passing laws or conferring powers which are of no practical value because they are unenforceable. There are, however, a number of areas where the law can and should be extended and clarified, mainly in improving the opportunities for the police to try to prevent disorder or disruption before it occurs.
To this end, the first proposed change is the introduction in England and Wales of a national requirement to give advance notice of marches, subject to certain exemptions for religious and traditional processions and those for which longer notice is not possible. A requirement of advance notice already exists in Scotland and certain other parts of the country and helps reduce the risk of disorder by giving the police and organisers time to make the necessary preparations.
Under the Public Order Act the powers of the police to impose conditions on a march are confined to circumstances when serious public disorder is anticipated. We have concluded that the power to impose conditions should also apply where what is anticipated is a serious


disruption of the life of the community or the coercion of individuals. There will, however, be the opportunity to challenge police conditions imposed on any of these grounds in the courts, and there will be no extension of the existing power to ban marches.
One of the major developments of recent years has been that the threat to public order or to the rights of the individual is nowadays often posed not by a march but by a static demonstration or assembly — whether it is a football crowd that has turned into a mob or a mass picket behaving in an intimidatory manner.
The use of open-air assemblies is, however, so fundamental to free speech and the right to protest that we think it would be quite wrong to confer any power to ban them, but where such assemblies threaten to result in serious public disorder, serious disruption or the coercion of individuals we have concluded that it is right for the police to have the power to impose limitations on the number of people present, the location and the duration of the assembly. The imposition of such conditions would also of Course be subject to challenge in the courts.
The power to impose conditions would apply in the case of all types of assembly in the open air. We do not, for the most part, consider that there should be special limitations on particular types of demonstration, such as pickets or demonstrations by foreign nationals. It is both in principle and in practice preferable for the general law to apply, and we consider that the general changes that we propose are adequate to deal with disorder and violence whatever its cause or source.
One of the most objectionable assaults on the rights of the individual citizen is the use of intimidation against his person or property in an attempt to prevent him doing what he has a legal right to do or force him to do what he has a right to abstain from doing. Such conduct is already an offence under section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, but for this to be an effective remedy it is not sufficient for the police to bring charges after the event. They must be able to nip intimidation in the bud. We therefore propose that this offence should carry a specific power of arrest, and that the maximum penalty should be increased from three months and £100 fine to six months imprisonment or a fine of £2,000.
I turn now to the common law public order offences. In England and Wales the Law Commission has recommended the modernisation of the offences of riot, unlawful assembly and affray. Subject to certain minor amendments, the Government propose to accept its recommendations for the new statutory offences of riot, violent disorder—the successor to unlawful assèmbly—and affray. These changes will not significantly affect the overall scope of the criminal law, but they will restate these offences in clearer, more modern language. They will introduce statutory maximum penalties, and give prosecutors greater flexibility over the mode of trial, by enabling less serious cases of affray and violent disorder to be tried in a magistrates court.
The White Paper contains a number of other improvements to public order law, including some tightening up of the offence of incitement to racial hatred; but I have outlined the main proposals which will apply in England and Wales. Scotland already has some of the provisions which we now propose for marches, including advance notice. The regulatory powers of Scottish local

authorities over marches will continue, and the police will be given the same powers as in England and Wales to impose conditions on marches and on static assemblies. The proposed change to the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 and those on incitement to racial hatred will extend to Scotland, but the common law there will remain unchanged pending recommendations from the Scottish Law Commission on mobbing and rioting.
As the House already knows, legislation will also be introduced in England and Wales to control the availability of alcohol at or on the way to football matches along the lines of the existing Scottish legislation.
The White Paper contains a set of proposals which bring up to date the age-old balance between fundamental but sometimes competing rights in our society. We must and shall continue to preserve the basic and crucial right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. These freedoms are essential to any democratic society. They must be given full and effective protection, but people also have the right to protection against being bullied, hurt, intimidated or obstructed, whatever the motive of those responsible may be, whether they are violent demon-strators, rioters, intimidatory mass pickets or soccer hooligans. I believe that these proposals will contribute in a practical way to protecting both sets of freedoms.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for sending me an advance copy of the White Paper this morning. I am glad to welcome two of its proposals. The first relates to the new measure intended to bring relief to people on housing estates and in other areas who are threatened or intimidated by louts and hooligans. Secondly, we welcome the proposal to strengthen the law on incitement to racial hatred. However, we regret that the Government have rejected the proposal that has been made by the Commission for Racial Equality, the Trades Union Congress, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and others to create powers for banning a march on the ground that it would incite racial hatred.
There are two major areas in which we believe the Government have made the wrong decision in the White Paper. In one of those we believe that they have made a dangerous decision. We are profoundly concerned about the proposal that seven days' notice must be given by organisations of a procession in England and Wales. The Select Committee recommended a minimum of 72 hours, and current practice in local legislation is 24 hours to five days.
The White Paper and the Home Secretary cite the Scottish seven days' requirement, but in Scotland the law says that notice must be given to the local authorities, whereas in England and Wales notice will have to be given to the police. We are very worried that because of that the police will be forced into making a political decision about the nature of a march and whether it should be allowed to proceed.
Even more worrying to us is the decision to give powers to the police to impose conditions on open-air demonstrations, to limit their numbers, to decide their timing and to decide or indeed to change, their place. The whole point of a demonstration is often to alert the public to anxiety by amassing large numbers of people and to do that in a particular place. For example, a demonstration about the closure of the Swindon railway workshops is most appropriate outside those workshops, but the police


on their own judgment could, if they wished, change the location of such a demonstration. Therefore, once again the police are being forced by the Government into a political role that is not of their choosing.
It is especially regrettable that the Government have decided to extend these restrictions to picketing. At present the code of practice on picketing under the Employment Act 1980 says:
The police have no responsibility for enforcing the civil law.
The White Paper will turn the civil law into criminal law.
The right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), when he was Secretary of State for Employment, said on the Second Reading of what is now the 1980 Employment Act that control or limitation of picketing had
absolutely nothing to do with the police. It has nothing to do with criminal law. … The police are in no way involved in this.
Later he said:
The Bill does not put any additional burden on the police as it does not create any new criminal offence". — [Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 76.]
Those assurances are being totally abandoned by what the Government are proposing in the White Paper.
The Prime Minister recently made the slip in the House of talking about the criminal law on picketing. That is what the Government intend to create. This will almost certainly be unworkable in practice, but, even so, it will be a dangerous infringement of civil liberties and the right of peaceful dissent. It will place the police in the intolerable position of making political judgments about such activities. It will erode the independence of the police. It will turn the police into reluctant and unwilling agents of the Government's industrial and political policies. As Mr. Lesley Curtis pointed out yesterday to the Police Federation in Blackpool, it will continue the Government process of making the police the scapegoat for the failure of their employment laws.
The people want, and have the right to expect, a peaceful orderly society in which they are protected from disorder and intimidation and in which that protection goes hand in hand with the protection of the right to free and peaceful dissent. The White Paper does not provide a satisfactory basis either for democratic dissent or for peace in crime-free streets and neighbourhoods.
It is no wonder that simultaneously the Government have seen their record on civil liberties unprecedently condemned in today's opinion polls and have suffered a unanimous vote of no confidence on their law and order policies by the Police Federation.

Mr. Brittan: With regard to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about louts and hooligans and incitement to racial hatred, I am grateful for his support.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's regret that there will not be power to ban processions on grounds such as incitement to racial hatred, this is something that we considered carefully, but it seemed to me that whether there will be serious public disorder is an objective matter on which the police can have a view, subject to the right of the Home Secretary to agree or not to consent to a ban. I think that to allow a ban on the ground that racial hatred will be stimulated involves making just the kind of judgment which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, in the latter part of his remarks, was inappropriate. [Interruption.] It is not a question of saying, "It is for the Home Secretary," as I hear the right hon. Gentleman

muttering. Under the existing arrangements, as he knows, it is for the police to initiate the request for the ban, and they have to decide whether or not to make such a request.

Dr. M. S. Miller: rose —

Mr. Brittan: I shall not give way. I am answering a question, and it is customary on a statement to answer questions in the proper order.
With regard to the seven days' notice and advance notice generally, I think that the origin of substantial public support for something which has been patchy in different parts of the country was in Lord Scarman's report on the Brixton riots. As for the specific period of time, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) appeared to be commending 72 hours rather than seven days. The advantage of giving a longer period of advance notice, with the important exceptions that I mentioned in the statement, rests wholly with those who wish to engage in the march or procession, because it enables arrangements for the peaceful conduct of such a march to be agreed with the police. If the police seek to impose conditions which the organisers of the march regard as unreasonable, they will have the opportunity to challenge those conditions in court if they so wish.
On the more general objections of the right hon. Gentleman to the power of the police to impose conditions, I remind him that we are not talking about a law on picketing. I made it clear that I did not think it right to have a special law on picketing, on demonstrations outside embassies or on anything so specific. The general law should apply where serious disorder arises, whether on the picket line or not. Anyone who witnessed the scenes over the year of the miners' strike would regard it as irresponsible to take any view other than that.
With regard to the suggestion that there is an incursion of the criminal law into what is essentially a civil matter, the right hon. Gentleman is living in an unreal world. During the miners' strike criminal offences were committed daily on the picket line. The idea that one could just stand by, that the criminal law was not involved, that serious public disorder did not arise, and that it was simply a peaceful civil dispute bears no relation to what happened on the ground.
The police already have powers to deal with public disorder in regard to picketing, as elsewhere. They have the power to limit numbers. The extent of the police powers and their involvement was highlighted and clarified in the judgment of Mr. Justice Scott in the South Wales picketing case.
The provision of a specific power to impose conditions enables the matter to be defused in exactly the same way as with marches and processions, and enables discussions to take place in advance to ensure that there will not be disorder on the picket line or anywhere else. Anyone who is seriously interested in industrial relations being conducted in a peaceful way should wholeheartedly welcome the proposals. Those interested in peaceful picketing have nothing whatever to fear from them.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his criticisms, wholly ignored the considerations which have to arise before conditions can be applied. There has to be either serious public disorder or a serious threat to the disruption of the life of the community, or the coercion of an individual. Anyone who thinks that it should not be right, subject to the law, to impose conditions when assemblies lead to those threats, has failed to learn the lesson of recent years.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: My right hon. and learned Friend makes the point that there is no purpose in changing the laws or providing additional powers if the real problems lie in enforcement. Therefore, may I ask him, in relation to what seem to be sensible and moderate proposals for change—in contrast to the view taken by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) — whether the police believe that the changes will help them in discharging their responsibility for avoiding public disorder?

Mr. Brittan: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. Throughout the review I have concentrated on the question of practicability. All sorts of suggestions, perfectly understandably, have come from all sorts of quarters, with which I was not able to agree because they did not seem practical. In deciding what was practical we were involved in close consultation with the police. The answer to my right hon. and learned Friend's question is that the proposals are put forward as a practical scheme, on the basis of close consultation with the police.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Public Order Bill was introduced in 1936 at the specific request of the Labour party, following its autumn conference, to deal with the problems arising from the demonstrations in Cable street and Oswald Mosley's party. In 1978, in a small way, we began to reassess the public order legislation in the light of the marches problem at the time. I welcome any reassessment of the problem of public order. There is need for reassessment from time to time.
The 52-page report was talked about for six years. It was discussed in a Green Paper and in the Law Commission's report, via Lord Scarman. There are still problems arising from marches, from the miners' strike, from the Libian embassy troubles and from the football hooliganism of recent weeks.
During the miners' strike I asked the Solicitor-General whether any of the powers available to the Director of Public Prosecutions or chief constables during that dispute proved to be unsatisfactory. The Solicitor-General told me:
I understand that each of the chief constables in the areas affected by this dispute has assured the Home Secretary that he seeks no change in the content of the criminal law.
I suggest to the Home Secretary that the matter could be dealt with in a much better way than he proposes by setting up a Special Select Committee to deal with all the issues. The chief constables' representatives could then come before us, as could representatives of the miners, and put their views before the Government decided on legislation.

Mr. Brittan: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's long experience in these matters. It is interesting to note that he did not mention that a Select Committee had deliberated on these matters in response to a Green Paper. When we have had a Green Paper and a response to it in the form of a Select Committee investigation, and we then publish a White Paper after a long period, I do not believe that anyone can fairly accuse us of rushing precipitately into anything.

Sir Edward Gardner: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his decision to publish a White Paper on the present deplorable state of the law on public order will be widely welcomed? Does he agree that for far too long the judges have had to overcome intolerable

difficulties in trying to interpret to juries the meaning and application of ancient common law offences, such as riot, unlawful assembly and affray, and that juries have had to suffer what Lord Scarman has called the forensic confusion caused by the obscurity and imprecision of the present law?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, and I welcome the opportunity that his question gives me to thank the Law Commission for its work in this area, which has laid the foundation for the changes which we are proposing in the area to which he referred. I think that the ancient laws have had their day and require modernisation. It is a question of practical importance as well as one of theoretical legal importance. I believe that the changes to be introduced will improve the flexibility of the law so that some cases can be tried more quickly before a magistrates court rather than always going to the Crown court.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: While welcoming in general terms the Home Secretary's expression of support for the guarantee of right of assembly provided by article 11 of the European convention, and in general terms the codification of the common law recommended by the Law Commission, may I express my surprise that he has thought fit to bring forward the White Paper at this time, when his admission to me at the last Home Office Question Time was that the operational lessons of the miners' strike had not yet been drawn, and that the Association of Chief Police Officers had not reached conclusions. As the purpose of the public order law must be to render more effective the operations of the police, his decisions are premature.
Furthermore, the White Paper does not deal with certain serious matters which arose during the miners' strike, including the extension of police powers to deal with breaches of the law which occurred in situations far from the scene of the apprehended breach of the peace; and, secondly, the extended use by magistrates courts of bail conditions, rendering group justice a nasty feature of our developing criminal law.
I welcome the Home Secretary's proposed extension to England of the ban on alcohol at football matches and, in general terms, the advance notice of marches. However, the proposed new ground enabling the police to impose conditions on marches and assemblies where there is serious disruption of the life of the community and coercion of individuals, seems to be a somewhat unnecessary extension of the law in view of the existence already of powers to deal with serious public disorder.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman, with due respect, is not on to a good point in relation to the Association of Chief Police Officers' examination of the operational lessons of the strike. The chief police officers are looking at questions of practical policing. I do not believe that the lessons that they may draw from that—in which the Home Office will be closely involved—will be in any way inconsistent with the examination of the law on which we have embarked. As I have said, there has in any event been extensive consultation with the police in the course of the review.
As for the hon. Gentleman's complaint that the review does not deal with the extension of breaches of the peace of the kind that we saw during the dispute, that matter has come before the higher courts. They have clearly laid


down a proper interpretation of the traditional, ancient and necessary power of the police to intervene to prevent a breach of the peace. Bail conditions perhaps go beyond a review of public order, but 1 take note of what the hon. Gentleman said about them.
Finally, and most important, the hon. Gentleman cavils —that is an understatement, because he objects to it—at the introduction of the extra provisions on serious disruption to the life of the community and coercion of individuals as grounds which entitle conditions to be made for static assemblies and processions. That comes from a member of the Social Democratic party, the leader of which rightly showed such enthusiasm in deploring the excesses of the past year. It is inconsistent to find the Social Democratic party spokesman on these matters adopting a contrary view.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people will welcome the moderation of the White Paper? Is he further aware that many people were concerned when the Libyan march took place after a warning to the authorities the night before that there might be serious trouble, which resulted in the tragic death of WPC Fletcher? It appeared afterwards that there were no powers to stop, limit or control such a demonstration outside the Libyan embassy. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the proposed powers to be given to the police in cases where serious disruption is likely to change the location of a demonstration will effectively put an end to any serious risk in a future situation outside such an embassy which might threaten the life of one of our police officers?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his kind remarks about the White Paper's moderation. It is a moderate document. None the less, it seeks to fill some important gaps in the law and to learn some important lessons from recent events.
With regard to demonstrations outside embassies, I shall not comment on particular circumstances, especially the state of knowledge as to what was likely to occur at the Libyan people's bureau. However, if the police have reason to believe that there will be serious public disorder, disruption to the life of the community or coercion of any individual, in demonstrations outside embassies, those extended criteria will enable the police to take necessary action, including moving demonstrators, or requiring them to move, to avoid disorder.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Does not the White Paper have a great deal more to do with suppressing those who dare to disagree with the Government than with preventing disorder? Is the Home Secretary aware that the overall majority of marches and demonstrations are entirely peaceful? If someone hits someone else on a march or damages property, he is guilty of criminal offences that already exist, and can and should be prosecuted. That is the law as it now exists. However, under the proposals in the White Paper, even if the march is entirely peaceful, one can still be committing a criminal offence if notice has not been given to the police. That will happen even if there is no incident on the march. Again, even if there is no incident on the march, one can still be guilty of a criminal offence if the march dares to deviate from the route laid down by the police.
Does not the White Paper seem to sum up the Government's attitude that democracy is all right as far as

it goes, but must not be allowed to go too far? One can vote once every five years, but the rest of the time one must shut up and stay at home. If one dares to show one's dissent, one will be hedged around with criminal laws even if there is no violence to people or property.

Mr. Brittan: I utterly and totally disagree with what the hon. Lady has said. I note with interest not only that her remarks are contrary to many of the things that have been said by other Opposition Members, but that the examples that she gave of the wickedness of the proposals do not match in any way the criticism that she makes. She says—and it sounds very nice—that the object of the exercise is to suppress those who dare to disagree with the Government. I do not see that giving notice of a march that might disrupt the lives of fellow citizens and, by the giving of notice, enabling proper arrangements to be made for its peaceful conduct, is suppressing the right to disagree with the Government. It is providing a venue, an opportunity and a vehicle for that disagreement to be expressed in an orderly way. If the hon. Lady does not want that, she is completely out of touch with the wishes of the vast majority of people.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: With regard to peaceful picketing, should not the House recall that the recommendation of the National Union of Mineworkers is that the maximum number of peaceful pickets should be six, and that such picketing has nothing whatsoever to fear from the White Paper? It is the mob rule and mob violence that we saw in the recent strike that need to be stamped out, and that should have the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Nobody who wishes to picket peacefully has anything to fear from any of the proposals in the White Paper. Nobody who wishes to criticise the Government, or, dare I say, the Opposition, however strongly, has anything to fear from the White Paper. The only people who, rightly, will regret the White Paper are those who wish to turn disagreements into turmoil and democracy into mobs.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that certain ethnic groups will be dismayed at his unwillingness to grasp the nettle by banning marches by groups the object and raison d'être of which are solely to stir up trouble? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises that there are such organisations. It is not difficult to discern their motives, because they have displayed their spleen and venom on several occasions. There is no difficulty in identifying them and banning them from deliberately creating trouble.

Mr. Brittan: I naturally deeply respect and understand what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, one is bound to be sympathetic to the thinking that lies behind his question. However, after long and anxious consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it would not be right to go down that route, because I believe that however obvious and evident it may be to us that a particular group or organisation is nothing other than an evil group or body, to translate that essentially political judgment into something that would lead to a breach of the criminal law is not something that we should do lightly. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has had only a short time to look at the White Paper. If he looks at the proposals designed to


tighten the law on incitement to racial hatred, he will find that they meet many of the concerns to which he gave voice and will lead to a substantial improvement in that direction.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I fully understand the importance of the statement to hon. Members and their constituents. However, there is important private Members' business to follow. I ask hon. Members to be brief in their questions.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that those interested in the maintenance of public tranquillity will be reassured that there has been no over-reaction in the document to the unhappy events of the past 18 months? Will he consider the impact on public order of those sections of the Representation of the People Act which enable candidates to make use of schools, no matter what impact there is on public order in the area? The British National party came to Leicester with many of its supporters and caused tremendous problems in my constituency. Is there any hope that my right hon. and learned Friend can hold out to my long-suffering constituents in that regard?

Mr. Brittan: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will look carefully at the part of the White Paper that deals with that specific issue. Again, I was tempted to go down the road that he suggested, but, in the interests of the very moderation and desire not to over-react that he commends, I shrank from interfering with the electoral process in the way that he would wish me to do. My hon. and learned Friend is right. We were called upon to do several things, such as giving a banning or notice power in relation to static demonstrations, which we have sedulously avoided.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Home Secretary aware that more than 90 per cent. of marches and demonstrations take place with advance notice to the police and that every demonstration that I have organised has been planned in conjunction with the local police to ensure that it was organised properly? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, however, that the proposal in chapter 4 of the White Paper will affect, for example, groups of parents wishing to protest about a road accident forming up together to walk to the council house and ask for a zebra or pelican crossing, or groups of workers wishing to protest about a closure notice walking a few hundred yards to the factory headquarters? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that his proposal will criminalise people who organise demonstrations of that kind if they do not give advance notice?

Mr. Brittan: When the hon. Gentleman has considered the White Paper more carefully, he will realise that there is an exemption for exactly the kind of situation that he describes. Of course there will be occasions on which spontaneous protest is necessary, or is felt to be necessary, and provision is made for that.

Mr. Tony Baldry: If conditions imposed as a result of intimidatory picketing are breached by large numbers of pickets, what will be the liability under civil or criminal law of the trade unions which organise such intimidatory picketing?

Mr. Brittan: In terms of the criminal law, if a breach of the conditions takes place, anyone guilty of

participating in or organising such a breach will be guilty of a criminal offence. There may be evidential problems, especially in relation to those who do not have the courage to turn up on the spot but organise everything from behind, but there is no doubt about the potential criminal liability. As for the implications for the civil law, I should like to reflect on that aspect.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Despite the Home Secretary's knee-jerking rhetoric about civil liberities, does he accept that the bulk of the White Paper amounts to the criminalisation and social control of dissent? Does he accept that manifestations of direct democracy should be part of any healthy democratic society and how does he relate that to the powers under paragraph 3(1) of the White Paper, which will be used on the spot by the police in relation to processions and static manifestations? Will he also explain why he has not taken powers on under paragraph 5·9 to deal with broadcasting in relation to racial hatred?

Mr. Brittan: It seems to me that if anyone is displaying a knee-jerking reaction it is the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas). There is no question of criminalisation of the exercise of civil liberties, and I do not believe that any rational person reading the document would think so. No one on this side of the House needs any lessons from the hon. Gentleman on the importance of civil liberties or the value of freedom of speech and assembly as a central feature of our democracy. On his specific point about the imposition of conditions, I think that the circumstances in which they can be imposed are entirely reasonable, and I remind the House that they will be subject to challenge in the courts.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As one who disagrees with the Government from time to time, may I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement and the publication of a very constructive White Paper? Does he accept that the majority of people in this country will welcome the fact that the Government are prepared to stand up for the interests of the vast majority of law-abiding people, who are sick and tired of being intimidated and inconvenienced and having their property damaged by people who get away with blue murder under cover of demonstrations and marches?

Mr. Brittan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, both for the warmth of his welcome and for its scarcity value.

Mr. Robin Corbett: As the Home Secretary referred earlier to ancient laws which had had their day, why did he go back 93 years in Scotland in relation to the seven days' notice required for marches?

Mr. Brittan: It is a logical fallacy to suggest that if some laws are out of date because they are old, all laws that are old must be out of date.

Mr. Tony Favell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the whole country will welcome his assurance that those involved in peaceful picketing have nothing to fear? But what of unions which encourage mass picketing? Has any consideration been given to the possibility of their having to bear the expense of policing mass picketing? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that ratepayers had to find a great deal of money to finance the policing of mass picketing during the miners' strike?

Mr. Brittan: In this context, I should draw attention to the decision of Mr. Justice Scott in the South Wales picketing case, which set out many circumstances in which mass picketing itself could amount to a criminal offence under section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. As for payment of the costs arising from a breach of the law, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to our tentative suggestion in that area, which has proved to be one of the most difficult aspects. The House will find that certain passages in the White Paper have green edges. That is one of them, and we shall welcome the views of all concerned in the coming months.

Mr. Gordon Brown: As these extraordinary and extreme proposals effectively put the traditional rights to free assembly at the discretion of the police, and as there is to be only six weeks consultation and the police have yet to report on the operation of the miners' dispute, and given that there are as many views as there are policemen as to what constitutes serious disruption to the life of the community, will the Home Secretary take the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and set up a special Committee of the House to review the proposals in detail, and especially the view of some of us that the proposals constitute a breach of the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Brittan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman seems able to reach instant decisions on what constitutes a breach of the European convention. It takes most people, including the Commission and the court itself, somewhat longer. The extravagance of the language used against the proposals in today's exchanges exactly matches the lack of specific examples of what is supposed to be so dreadful about them.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's recognition that enforceability has been the problem, but I am not clear about the situation in relation to section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. Will the proposed changes allow those responsible for organising mass intimidation to be brought to account, because that did not happen during the miners' strike, and that is what the people of Britain want from the new measure?

Mr. Brittan: Section 7 is unaffected by these proposals, but it means that intimidation is an offence. During the miners' dispute, many people were charged and prosecuted for breaches of section 7 of the Act. The problem with regard to the organisers— I believe that this is what my hon. Friend has in mind—was not a lack of law, but a lack of evidence in most cases. It was made perfectly clear that where evidence was available there were no holds barred in terms of any no-go area for prosecution.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give two assurances? First, before proceeding to legislation, will he seek as wide a consensus as possible on all the proposed restrictions on the present rights of protest and assembly, given that these are above all the rights and freedoms of minorities to protest against authorities? Secondly, will he ensure that the police are required to consult local authorities before imposing conditions, and that if any conditions are imposed the full power of judicial review will be available if people require to use it?

Mr. Brittan: With regard to the widest possible consensus, I hope that the House will feel that the spirit of the White Paper itself reflects a desire to create and build on such a cons6sus. As for the imposition of conditions, I can certainly give an assurance that our intention is precisely to ensure that judicial review will be available. With regard to police consultation with local authorities before imposing conditions, I imagine that in many cases, though not necessarily in all, that would be done as a matter of practice. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate, however, that there may be circumstances in which, for example, because of the urgency of the problem, this would not be practicable or even desirable.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome this review of public order, but what consideration has been given to making the organisers of marches responsible for the policing of marches? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Leicester £30,000 was charged for sending police there, and that policing a march in the Dorking area against Beecham Pharmaceuticals cost £6,000? What is the present rule, and will it be possible in the future for a chief constable to go straight to the Home Secretary if he believes that there is a threat of serious disruption, rather than having to go through a council which, for political reasons, may refuse his request?

Mr. Brittan: I am not proposing a change in the procedure for applying for my permission in the only area in which my permission is required—the actual banning of a march. I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and we have discussed it in relation to a particular case. He will recall that when a chief constable makes an application, even the most unpromising local authority is not usually reluctant to put it forward, and I believe that we can deal with the matter in that way.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the Home Secretary recollect that serious disorder took place inside and outside a school which was recently let to the British National party for a meeting in connection with an election? Does he recall that a majority of the Bradford city council felt compelled to offer that school to the BNP under the Representation of the People Act? I urge him to reconsider this matter to allow local authorities discretion to refuse facilities to organisations which, by their declared aims, are Fascist and racist, and whose public activities are widely offensive and threaten public order.

Mr. Brittan: No one dislikes or hates that particular organisation more than I do, but it is vital not to be selective in our use of civil liberties and our protection of them. Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the United States Supreme Court said that the real test of a society's commitment to civil liberties was its readiness to provide freedom for the thought that we hate. We must continue to provide that freedom.

Mr. George Foulkes: What criteria will be used for on-the-spot decisions on the size and location of static demonstrations, and what training, experience or qualifications do police officers have for making such on-the-spot decisions?

Mr. Brittan: The criterion will be the one set out in the White Paper—the threat of serious public disorder—which applies at the moment and which enables conditions to be imposed by the police in respect of mashes. In


addition, there are the criteria of serious disruption to the life of the community and coercion of an individual. I do not believe that the application to static demonstrations of a criterion which already exists in respect of marches and processions, and the extension of the others that I have mentioned, will fail to be usable in practice.

Mr. John Ryman: Will the Home Secretary deal with two specific points? If the proposals in the White Paper are implemented in legislation, is there not a danger that the law of conspiracy will be extended, and would that not be directly contrary to the trend of judicial decisions emanating from the Criminal Law Act 1977, which specifically limits conspiracy to certain statutory conspiracies? Secondly, as has already been said, does this not create an enormous problem of obtaining evidence in furtherance of a conspiracy, with a further waste of resources?

Mr. Brittan: I do not see why the use of the law of conspiracy should be increased because of the proposals in the White Paper. If the hon. Gentleman has a point which I have overlooked, I should be grateful if he would write to me about it.

Mr. Donald Dewar: When an important White Paper is issued which covers Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom, it is unsatisfactory if no Scottish Office Minister is at the Dispatch Box to answer our questions. It is also unsatisfactory when Scottish Office activity is confined to a briefing of the press in Edinburgh.
May I assume that the Home Secretary is on this occasion in a position to answer for the Scottish Office? On that optimistic assumption, why has section 3(2) of the 1936 Act been repealed when section 3(1) has survived in relation to Scotland? When is the Scottish Law

Commission report, which is specifically referred to in the White Paper, likely to be forthcoming? Has any consideration been given to importing criteria against which to measure the possibility of a ban on a procession under section 63 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which will remain the main controlling legislation for Scotland?
Does the Home Secretary accept that many people in Scotland believe that it is serious when an individual going peacefully to his place of work to exercise a traditional right may be guilty of a criminal offence merely by exercising that right? Is there not a danger that this will place the police in the unenviable position of having to take decisions which, whatever they may feel, will be seen as being quasi-political and which could pitch them into the storm centre of controversy? Surely the real test is whether these powers are enforceable and whether they will improve the crisis situation which the police have had to face during the last year or 18 months. Is not the legacy of the White Paper's muddled thinking that the police will be given painful choices and have to face difficult dilemmas, rather than useful powers, which they will not necessarily want?

Mr. Brittan: It is precisely because I have had in mind the practicability of any new decisions which the House might take that these powers are limited and circumscribed in the way proposed. That general point is, I believe, taken care of, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxieties.
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on his first point — [Interruption.] I am sure that that is the wisest course. I am not able to say when the Scottish Law Commission will report, but for reasons which are different from the answer that I gave to his first point. The White Paper makes it quite clear that the regulatory arrangements affecting local authorities are regarded as acceptable, subject to the supplementation of the further proposals covering England, Wales and Scotland.

House of Commons (Members Access)

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me to raise it. I wish to draw your attention to the Sessional Order dealing with the duties of the Metropolitan police, which is passed at the beginning of each Parliament. It is of direct consequence to an incident that happened to me this morning, on which I seek your guidance.
The order states:
That the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament that passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House".
At 10 o'clock this morning I was knocked down on the crossing between St. Stephen's Entrance and Westminster Abbey. You may be aware that this is a studded crossing, which is not classified as a proper pedestrian crossing. Having reported the accident to the Chief Superintendent of Police based here, I am informed that this crossing becomes a legal crossing when a Division is in progress, when the police can keep an eye on the traffic to enable hon. Members to get to the Division.
This crossing is used by many hon. Members and secretaries. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, Abbey Gardens and Dean's Yard contain many offices for secretaries and Members. Can you advise us on what can be done, following an investigation in consultation with the Serjeant at Arms and the Chief Superintendent of Police, to make this crossing subject to the legal requirement that cars and cycles should stop? On road safety grounds, there is surely a need to protect hon. Members going to and from their place of work.

Mr. Speaker: The whole House will be sorry to hear of the hon. Gentleman's accident—[Laughter.] Order. This is not a matter of amusement. I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Roger King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will be delighted to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) is slowly being restored to the rudest of the rude, following his accident this morning.
As a frequent user of that road, I endorse the point that my hon. Friend made. Because of the enormous build-up of tourist traffic, coaches and pedestrians, in the access areas outside the House, it is becoming increasingly hazardous to cross this road. I very much hope that the warning sign on that crossing can be made much clearer, even to the extent of erecting signs on lamp posts stating, "Caution. MPs cross here."

Mr. Peter Snape: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there no limit to the pomposity of some hon. Members, who waste our time with such trivia? If the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) had been in collision with a vehicle of his own size, it would have been a Sinclair C5, and he would have come off best again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will not treat this as a matter for hilarity. I have said that I will look into the problem. A great many hon. Members cross that road.

Auld Report Debate(Selection of Speakers)

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to next Monday's debate. It is the custom of the House that the Chair always exercises fairness in calling hon. Members from each side to speak in a debate. On this occasion the debate will be of a cross-Bench type. At the heart of the question there will be a matter on which hon. Members on both sides will have set opinions. May we be assured that there will be a balance in the debate so that the different points of view, whether from this side or from that, can be heard? Secondly, if the Chair is aware that a large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, will the ten minutes rule be operated?

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical point at the moment, to the extent that I do not know how many hon. Members will wish to take part in the debate. In an issue of this kind, however, I carefully weigh the balance of opinion as well as the balance of the parties. I shall consider carefully the question of a limit on the length of speeches when I have some idea of how many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Personal Statement

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday, at Question Time, I asked the Prime Minister a question which reflected upon the activities of an hon. Gentleman while in the Falkland Islands. I now understand that my question was based on an erroneous press report.
As we are all men and women of honour in this House, and as I would never wish to make an unfair point against the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), if it is possible for me to withdraw the question, I unreservedly do so.

Mr. Speaker: I think that honour has been satisfied.

Adjournment (Spring)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Friday 24th May do adjourn until Monday 3rd June, and the House shall not adjourn on Friday 24th May until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Leader of the House will probably already be aware that in the elections that took place yesterday in Northern Ireland—despite the difficulties encountered by many electors in casting a lawful vote, which were the subject of an exchange between myself and the Prime Minister some hours ago which I believe was heard by the right hon. Gentleman —the Ulster Unionist party scored a significant success that confirms the outcome or verdict of the 1983 general election as reflected in the composition of the House.
You might wonder, Mr. Speaker, why an event that is naturally the cause of such satisfaction to my right hon. and hon. Friends by whom I hope shortly to be joined upon this Bench—at any rate, after today—should be relevant to the motion before the House. The point relates directly to the business that needs to come before the House in the next two months, before and after the recess, and to which the Government will need to give attention shortly, including during the recess.
It was declared to be the object of the Ulster Unionist party, when it sought election in 1983, to see an end put to the system that is colloquially known as direct rule and under which the constitutional arrangements in that Province are tentatively renewed from year to year by the annual renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. There are two principal aspects to direct rule, as that falls to be considered by such annual renewal. One is the manner in which the law in that Province is made by the Secretary of State and by the authority of the House, which might be colloquially summed up as government by Order in Council.
The second aspect is the absence from the Province of local government in the ordinary sense of the term as it is without question enjoyed and required by the inhabitants of the rest of the United Kingdom. It was to the second of those deficiencies that the attention of the electorate in Northern Ireland was directed in yesterday's election, because, so far as the Ulster Unionist party was concerned, it was a local government election about local government We declared to the electorate that we were seeking their vote as evidence of their demand and right to enjoy in Northern Ireland democratic elected local government as it is enjoyed, and covering the same circumstances that it covers, in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is that request and petition—that is the appropriate language to be used by those who approach this House —that we are able to renew, and do renew, as a result of the outcome of the test of public opinion that has just taken place.
The annual occasion for the renewal of the 1974 Act falls in June or early July. The actual date has, I believe, varied from one year to another. However, it would be in our view inconceivable that once again, for the twelfth time, this annual lease should be renewed without any indication that in the subsequent 12 months, and early in those 12 months, it was the intention of the Government

to seek the necessary authority from this House—in so far as it is necessary—to deal with the two glaring deficiencies summed up under the title of direct rule.
That is not something that can suddenly or lightly be enterprised or taken into account. It is no indiscretion to say that we have been aware in recent months that the Secretary of State and his advisers, as well as the authorities of the House, have been directing their attention to the modalities by which these two grievances could be removed, Northern Ireland could have its laws made by this House in the same way as the rest of the kingdom, and its inhabitants could enjoy the advantages of responsible elected local government wherever they live. However, if that process has been slowed down or held up, as I believe it may have been, to await the outcome of yesterday's elections, there is every reason why it should now go full steam ahead. If there is to be a renewal in the conventional repetitive terms again in 1985, what is required is that it should be accompanied by a clear indication by the Government that they are taking steps, and seek renewal only on the basis that they are taking steps, to remove those two stigmata of direct rule from that part of the United Kingdom.
That is something which is not only desirable and necessary — as I believe no hon. Member would be disposed to dispute—on its own merits. I do not think that any hon. Member of the House would seriously argue the case that a part of the kingdom should be legislated for in a different way from the part that he himself represents. Nor do I think that any hon. Member could say that the benefits of local government that his constituents enjoy ought to be withheld from the constituents of any other hon. Member. It is not just a matter of equity and the common implications of membership of the Union which is symbolised and realised by the existence of this House; it is also directly related to stability and confidence in the Province.
The new Secretary of State—I hope that I do not need to apologise for using the word new, as we all find that we learn slowly and painfully in Northern Ireland—has been devoting his attention, not unnaturally, as he is duty bound, to anything which would assist the undoubted growth of confidence and stability which has been observed in the Province in the past six months. In Northern Ireland, it is not only the words of the Government but also the actions of the Government which are evaluated, and it is for this reason that we sometimes find it evidence of incomplete understanding that Ministers should repeat and rehearse what are called statutory guarantees, when Northern Ireland is indeed an integral part of the United Kingdom.
In this matter, as in others, deeds speak louder than words. The deed which I ask the Leader of the House to bring, once again, to the attention of the Secretary of State and the Cabinet is the temporary and provisional nature of the arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland which have subsisted since 1973 and which have been renewed only on an annual basis. One may ask what would be the conclusion drawn by an ill-wisher of the Union—someone who not only hoped but believed that it might somehow be part of the Government's intention that the Union should be dissolved. What would be such a person's interpretation if he saw that the Government's acts were to insist on keeping that Province on an annual lease—a


provisional arrangement, annually renewed—as if there were to be some new and drastically different dispensation still to arise during the 12 months ahead?
I have to say—I think not for the first time, but I can now do so with new authority and emphasis — that nothing could repress such a view more effectively than to see that the Government at last were proceeding to give Northern Ireland constitutional normality in the two outstanding respects in which its constitutional arrangements are at present abnormal. That would mean our no longer having the annual proceeding which reminds everyone in Northern Ireland of the temporary basis upon which the link between that Province and the United Kingdom subsists.
Incidentally, we should no longer have the quasi-farce of the time of the House being taken up in duplicating, in the form of Orders in Council, legislation which has already passed this House in the form of a Bill. No longer would hon. Members representing the Province be denied the opportunity of participating fully in the process of legislating, to which they are, as Members of Parliament, called. No longer would the inhabitants of the Province have the just grievance that they do not have local representation and local responsibility for administration wherever they live.
I do not believe that these matters are unfamiliar to the Leader of the House. For many years he has followed with interest and close attention and, some of us usually felt, with real sympathy, the agony of that part of the United Kingdom. He will have shared, therefore, our sense of growing relief at the increasing stability and confidence which has come to that Province in recent months. I feel sure, therefore, that my plea will not fall on deaf ears when I ask him and his Cabinet colleagues to direct their attention to this matter with urgency and not to wait until they are overtaken by the immediate necessity of the annual renewal of an Act which ought no longer to be necessary and which ought to be removed from the statute book.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I hope that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) will allow me completely to change the topic from a matter which clearly concerns him greatly, to one of equal concern to me. The announcement yesterday of 4,800 redundancies in British Rail Engineering Ltd. has confirmed the worst fears of my constituents — that the Swindon railway works will close.
Before the House rises for the Whitsun recess, this matter should be considered by the Government, on whose behalf I hope the Leader of the House will listen carefully to what I have to say. The matter seriously and severely affects 2,300 of my constituents who work for BREL. They have given outstanding service in a willing spirit of co-operation and in an atmosphere of excellent industrial relations. This closure could raise male unemployment in Swindon and surrounding areas by nearly 50 per cent., releasing a pool of highly skilled men into a local economy that has only limited need for those skills. Many of the men who will lose their jobs have little or no chance of finding another on account of their age.
The rumours that the Swindon works might close have been circulating for many years, and the desire of BREL management to wind down its Swindon operations has been known since the 1960s, along with the decision to

concentrate only on repairs and refurbishment instead of new build. Recent investment in modernised rolling stock built at other works has been good for the railway, good for Britain, but a disaster for Swindon as the new trains do not need as much repair as their predecessors. Similarly, the programme of asbestos removal is coming to an end.
During the past few months, therefore, I have urged BREL, British Rail and the Government to keep the Swindon works alive by increased export activity and new projects. I have asked them to examine very critically the arguments put forward for closure and stressed to them the high standards maintained by the Swindon work force. I have been joined in this effort by people from all sectors of the Swindon community and from all parties working in co-operation. Several months ago, it looked as if we might have won a reprieve from closure. Yesterday, sadly, it was confirmed that this is not true.
This is the 150th year of the Great Western railway and the vision of Brunel, which created Swindon as a railway town. In the anniversary celebrations scheduled for this summer I had hoped to be able to wish the Swindon railway works another proud 150 years. The badges and stickers are already printed in readiness for the celebrations. They say, "GWR 1835–1985." It now looks rather like a tombstone—born 1835, died 1985. The loss of the Swindon works will be mourned in a very real sense by every man, woman and child in the town.
However, it is more productive now, rather than just indulging in eulogy and obituary writing, to talk about the future. Swindon has become a phenomenal growth area in the past two decades, as a result of the town actively recruiting new industries. A vast wealth of new jobs have been created in all sectors of the economy, leaving the town no longer wholly dependent on the railway. That diversification will to some extent cushion the blow of the loss of the works. Yesterday, I spoke to the town's industrial adviser, who said that he knew of manufacturing and engineering concerns in Swindon which were already prepared to employ some of the men from the railway works. However, no matter how healthy the economy in Swindon is, we shall need help to weather the crisis, as will the 700 workers in Glasgow, and other workers throughout the country who will receive redundancy notices during the next two years. In Swindon the problem is not so much the lack of jobs as the lack of jobs to match the skills of the people in the railway works.
I am heartened to see that British Rail is creating Swindon Holdings, a new enterprise board, to find jobs for these people. However, the level of investment must be substantially higher, if that effort is to succeed. It should be coupled with additional support for job creation and small business start-up schemes through existing organisations, such as the Swindon Enterprise Trust.
I have also asked employment Ministers for a mobile job centre to be available to give individual workers practical advice on job opportunities, the enterprise allowance scheme, and how to use redundancy money as capital to start a small business. I have asked that the redundancy payments be as generous as possible, with the preservation of full pension rights, and that they meet the standards set in offers to other nationalised industry workers this year. For those who do not want to take redundancy or another job, I have asked transport Ministers to ensure that a worker who wishes it is offered redeployment either to another works or another part of


British Rail. British Rail Engineering Ltd. has said that it hopes to be able to place a substantial number of the Swindon work-force in another job, and I fervently hope that that is the case.
Furthermore, I have asked the Government to consider any available opportunity for a private buy-out of the Swindon works as a going concern. A company from across the Atlantic or elsewhere in the world may welcome the opportunity to get in under the European Community tariff barrier and to branch out into new projects, which only an independent company which is of fighting weight can undertake profitably. There are still untapped export opportunities as various Third-world countries upgrade their rail system.
Earlier today I met the United States Secretary of Transportation, Elizabeth Dole, at Westminster. We discussed, among other matters, the proposed closure of the Swindon railway works. I must explore every possible way of protecting the jobs of this skilled and committed work force. I was therefore grateful for the opportunity to bring Swindon's plight to the attention of somebody who may be able to offer advice and help in the rescue operation. She promised to help in any way that she could.
Provided an independent works were allowed to tender competitively and on an equal basis with BREL, it could be a profitable concern, and continue to provide many jobs. The Great Western railway survived for 112 years as a private company until nationalisation in 1947. I might add that nationalisation led to the largest job losses ever in the Swindon works. A private buy-out may sound overoptimistic, but while I admit that it is a long shot, we must not discount any possibility which might save 2,300 jobs. It is equally important to try to save the exceptional pool of talents and skills present in the Swindon workshops.
The unemployment problem in many areas is largely caused by a training gap. Employers often cannot find workers with specialist skills. It is wrong to assume that the training gap is merely another way of saying that there are not enough computer programmers. Skill shortages also exist in the more traditional occupations. For example, in some parts of the country there is a shortage of qualified welders. It would be best, therefore, if the vast skill resources at Swindon could be kept together and preserved. I have asked the Government at least to keep the forge and the spring shop at Swindon, both of which are essential to BREL's future. Furthermore, the greatest care must be taken to ensure that the work force has access to every available retraining opportunity, which will enable as many as possible to find skilled jobs in growth industries. If this programme of enterprise promotion, training and job counselling is followed, I have no doubt that Swindon and the railway workers can survive this crisis in time.
However, the Swindon railway works means more than the jobs and livelihoods of 2,300 families. The works central to the town's history, heritage and identity. Even the borough crest contains a railway engine. For everyone working in BREL in Swindon today, there are at last five former railwaymen, either retired or made redundant in past years and now in other areas of work. However, they are all railwaymen first, last and always, even if they have been working in another trade for 20 years or more.
Many thousands more are wives, mothers and children, and the Great Western heritage is also in their blood. The

young upwardly mobile office workers and professionals who earned Swindon a mention in the YAP handbook are the sons and daughters of railwaymen. Indeed, everyone in Swindon is in some sense a child of the railways, either in fact or only in spirit, because if there had been no railway works, Swindon would still be a small insignificant market town on the top of a hill, and not the high-tech success story of today.
It is important that we preserve a railway presence in the town. I am glad that British Rail western region has moved its headquarters to Swindon, but it would be sad if all that remained of this proud history were administrative offices and a railway museum.
Even if it is not possible to retain the works as a whole functioning unit, BR should at least ensure that the most historic workshop buildings are preserved. Listed building status is not inconsistent with their potential use as small industrial or commercial units or offices. That way, future generations of Swindonians would be reminded of their past, while they build the Swindon of the future.
Both the heritage of a town and the way of life of 2,300 families hang in the balance. The matter should be given urgent consideration by the House. Although I have outlined what I believe to be a good damage limitation programme, it cannot be beyond the wit or will of all those involved to devise a means to save these jobs and to maintain the works as a centre of engineering excellence. However, time will be of the essence, and we must make an immediate start.

Mr. Peter Snape: Like the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), I wish this matter to be debated as fully as possible. Some of his remarks will strike a responsive chord in Swindon and the House. He implied that railwaymen regard themselves as railwaymen throughout their lives, no matter what job they may have to do. Certainly, I worked in the railway industry until I was elected to the House in 1974. I shall always regard myself first and foremost as a railwayman. I am, indeed, the son of a railwayman.
This is a sad day for all who care about the railways and the future of this once great industry. Only a few years ago it would have been unthinkable to imagine a British Rail without Swindon. There has been a workshop there since 1843. Despite the ravages of time, the changes in our economic outlook and policies, and the Governments who have come and gone since then, Swindon's railway connections have remained. Yet earlier today we heard that after all that time Swindon is doomed.
Although the hon. Gentleman quite properly said that now is not necessarily the time to live in the past, it would be churlish not to pay tribute to the men and women who, over 150 years, made British Railways—I use its old title to describe all the former railway companies, in particular, Great Western railway—as great as it is.
The Government's reasons for the closure of the Swindon works and the running down of British Rail Engineering Ltd. are nonsensical. There is no doubt that modern rolling stock gives greater reliability and that the productivity of those who work within BREL, including those in Swindon, has increased dramatically in recent years. But to trot that out as an excuse for a further rundown in BREL's capacity is specious nonsense and an avoidance of responsibility by Ministers.
New rolling stock and locomotives are nothing new in British Rail. The process of redevelopment and re-equipment has been taking place since the second world war. The 1955 modernisation plan forecast wholesale changes in British Rail. Many changes came to pass, but they did not require a wholesale reduction in the staff of BREL. Before this Government, the future of the Swindon works was never in doubt. Manpower requirements at Swindon have varied over the years—

Mr. Coombs: indicated dissent.

Mr. Snape: I shall take the grin off the hon. Gentleman's face. This is no laughing matter. We are talking about his constituency. In the lifetime of the Labour Government there was no threat to the survival of Swindon works. I stand by that because it is true. If the hon. Gentleman has a shred of evidence to show that that is not true, he should produce it. Of course there is none.
Over the years, modernisation plans have come and gone, but they have never prejudiced or menaced the future of the railway workshops, such as those in Swindon. The Government's argument is that new rolling stock needs less maintenance and that the rate of productivity means that capacity for carriage repair and maintenance work, such as that carried out in Swindon, is redundant.
I wonder how many Ministers travel by rail. Certainly the Prime Minister does not. Transport Ministers always say that they have given British Rail all the investment that it has requested, that their desks are clear and that there are no more investment projects before them. That is true, as far as it goes; but an enormous part of the railway system is being neglected by British Rail management. It desperately needs modern rolling stock. British Rail employs some of the oldest and most decrepit rolling stock in service anywhere in the Western world.
British Rail managers, for reasons best known to themselves, concentrate only on those services that they call inter-city—an appalling misnomer, because many services that connect cities are not classed as inter-city. Last Friday I travelled on the 15.25 train from Leeds to Stalybridge. It is part of the service between Hull and Liverpool, which are two cities, yet the service is not part of British Rail's inter-city network. The rolling stock was the filthiest and most clapped-out that it has been my misfortune to travel on for many years.

Mr. Keith Best: The hon. Gentleman should come to Holyhead.

Mr. Snape: I understand what the hon. Gentleman means. I occasionally visit north Wales, although I have not been to his constituency for some years. I am sure he will agree that the rolling stock on those lines needs not refurbishment, but complete replacement. Yet, because the management of British Rail believes that those lines lose money, they are not part of the inter-city network about which it boasts. Those lines are lumped together in the clapped-out mass known as other provincial services. The management intends to run those trains, which are already clapped-out and a positive disincentive to rail travel, into the ground and then to withdraw the services because there will be nothing to replace them.
That is one reason why the engineering capacity of the British Rail workshops has been run down in recent years. We have a crazy transport policy, and British Rail

management connives in the running down of services that it considers do not make a profit and, therefore, in its eyes, have no long-term future.
Ever since the Government took office, alternatives to the rundown of BREL, including the closure of Swindon and the other closures that were forecast in today's statement, have been available. Indeed, they were published by BREL. In 1980, British Rail produced a rail plan projection, which forecast that, by the end of 1984, BREL would employ 43,000 people. At the time, it employed 36,700 people. The management of BREL, was forecasting expansion, not contraction.
I must ask the hon. Member for Swindon: was there no modern rolling stock around in 1981? I have already said that 10 years after the war, somewhat belatedly, the first modernisation plan was published. We have had 30 years of modernisation and replacement, yet only four short years ago BREL management forecast an expansion in engineering capacity. What has gone wrong since then is that the Government and the present management of British Rail have connived in running down the industry.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, after the trauma of the closure of Horwich—my hon. Friend will be aware that 1 started my career there—it was rumoured that Swindon would be the next in line? Despite the need to replace rolling stock, can one not draw the conclusion that, if closures continue in this way, BREL will disappear? Instead of expansion, there will be contraction, and it will the end of BREL as we know it.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend is right to remind us of the fate of the Horwich works. At the time, railwaymen were told, "Provided that you accept this closure, that should be the end of it." That has been the story at BREL and on British Rail's operational side for many years. No one believes management any more. It is no wonder that morale in the industry is at rock bottom. No one believes Ministers, or the management, when they talk about the future. They have been assured time after time, "Accept this one last closure and, although fewer people will be employed in the industry, they will at least be properly paid and will have a future." It has never been true, and it is not true now.
The decisions that affect the livelihoods of those at Swindon and elsewhere have been taken on an ad hoc, almost day-to-day, basis. That is one reason why BREL, is in its present state. Another reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) implied, is that it is the Government's intention to privatise anything that they can get their hands on to make a bob or two for the Treasury. Those of us who are interested in such matters are in no doubt that privatisation is intended for British Rail Engineering Ltd. However, before privatisation, it is necessary to get the constituents of the hon. Member for Swindon out of the way and on the dole.
British Rail Engineering Ltd. intends to slim clown—to use its favourite euphemism — to about 16,000 employees before it is privatised some time in the next two or three years. If the hon. Gentleman's constituents are being sacrificed to that ideological goal, that is being done regardless of whether there is any alternative employment for them.

Mr. Coombs: The hon. Gentleman has been carping at me for so long that there are now more points than I


could possibly answer in one intervention. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport with responsibility for railways and I travelled by train to Swindon to see the railway works 18 months ago, we were clearly told that the fear of closure had been over the railway works for the past 20 years, under Governments of both political parties. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the rundown of the numbers of people as opposed to the planned expansion, but that expansion was planned because repair work was expected to increase. Instead, the number of new build operations has increased, there has been less repair work and, therefore, the number required in the repair works, such as Swindon, has been reduced. Normally, the hon. Gentleman is better informed than this. I hope he will accept that what I say is true and not continue to suggest that the threat of closure has occurred only in the past two years.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The last major closure at Swindon was in 1962, when the old carriage and wagon capacity was closed. That was in the immediate aftermath of Dr. Beeching's report, and a Conservative Government were in power at the time. Unlike the hon. Member for Swindon, I do not wish to make a political point about the 1960s, but only 5,000 were left at the Swindon workshops after that closure in 1962.
The hon. Member for Swindon will accept that I have been to Swindon on many occasions over the years. The last time was about a year ago. For many years there have been fears in various parts of the workshops at Swindon about the future. Jobs change and, as the railways evolve, things are done differently. It has been necessary for people to be redeployed and in some cases made redundant. However, I repeat that never during the period of the last Labour Government was the continuance of Swindon as a railway centre in any doubt.
I also repeat that one of the things that has precipitated the latest crisis at Swindon is the decision by the British Railways Board not to carry on with the asbestos removal programme for its older diesel multiple units because it says that it can manage without them after 1986. That is directly contrary to what it was saying two years ago.
I can illustrate why morale has justifiably plummeted within BREL. Earlier, I referred to the rail plan projection that forecast 43,000 people working within BREL. In 1982, another rail plan forecast that by the end of 1986 27,000 people would be working in the industry. that is a dramatic fall by any stretch of the imagination, and it shows that the Government have changed their policies, although never their philosophy, and decided to run down BR's capacity enormously.
Looking at British Rail's freight side, is it any wonder that places such as Swindon, Glasgow and Horwich are under direct threat? There is virtually no rail freight any more because BR's wagon load fleet—the hon. Member for Swindon looks at the sky. I shall give him the figures.

Mr. Coombs: rose —

Mr. Snape: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has had a fair crack of the whip and others wish to speak in the debate.
BR's freight carryings have virtually collapsed over the past four or five years, as a deliberate act of policy.

Mr. Coombs: As a result of the miners' strike.

Mr. Snape: It has nothing to do with the miners' strike. The British Railways Board took the decision to phase out its unbraked wagon fleet about five years ago. It decided not to replace those vehicles with modern air brake vehicles, because it decided to get out of the wagon-load business and to concentrate only on train mode traffic. Therefore, it introduced the speed link wagon flow system. That means that if one wishes to send a wagonload of traffic from Swindon to Glasgow, for example, BR will say, "Thanks very much. Ring your local road haulier. We do not want to carry it."

Mr. Roger King: Quite right.

Mr. Snape: We do not expect any common sense from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King).
That is the reason why not only is there no freight and Swindon is closing but juggernaut lorries infest the length and breadth of the land. That is the result of deliberate policy.
It is not only the Swindon works, serious and tragic though its position is, but other works that are directly threatened. Since the early 1960s, Scotland has lost no fewer than four of its five main workshops and thousands of skilled engineers have gone to the wall and lost their jobs. The one works left, Springburn, has its closure almost guaranteed because of the small number of staff left after the latest announcement. It is an appalling tragedy that an industry in which Britain used to set an example for the rest of the world is being virtually closed.
I know that the management of BR appears to be interested only in expense-account bottoms on Pullman seats, but most people would prefer a greater proportion of freight to be carried by rail for both environmental and social reasons. If we had a system of finance that properly compared the two different modes of transport, perhaps even Tory Members would see the common sense of the approach that I have tried to outline.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport spoke earlier about exports, and here BREL has a good record. It has many contracts for railway equipment in various parts of the world. However, anybody who knows anything about exports will be the first to say that it is difficult to maintain one's export market and to bid for contracts overseas if, at the same time, one is running down home market capacity.
The Under-Secretary was asked whether he thought that the French or the Japanese would ever buy railway equipment from us. Neither of those countries ever buys anything from us, but for many years Britain has been in the forefront of railway contracts to the developing world. However, we are now being asked why, if our railway industry is not good enough to produce equipment for the home market, it is good enough for export. The announcement by BR's chairman that it is considering buying many of the 1,500 locomotives that will be required between now and the early part of the next century from the United States, does not endear him to the BREL work force. Nor does it augur well for the future of the railway workshops and the railway industry at large.
Even at this late stage, I hope that we have not passed the point at which it is no longer possible to say that BREL has a future. I fear that, under this Government, BREL


does not have a future. The short-sighted policies that the Government are carrying through will mean the demise of BREL.
For all the riches of the British silicon valley, which stretches down the M4 motorway and includes Swindon, few of the skilled men and women at BREL will qualify for jobs in those new industries because of the enormous change in technology. I do not think that the electorate of Swindon will forgive the hon. Member for Swindon. I hope that the Tory party, which has brought BREL to the brink of penury, will pay the electoral consequences soon rather than later.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that the debate is limited to three hours. If there is reasonable brevity, every hon. Member should have the opportunity to contribute.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I believe that the House should not rise for the Whitsun recess without considering the serious consequences of the strikes by schoolchildren. There have been demonstrations in various parts of the country —two two of them extremely large. The aim of the strikes is to destroy the youth training scheme—a scheme that is fundamental to the future of the very children who were asked to demonstrate against it.
The most recent strike was organised under the banner of the School Students Action Committee. It was set up by the Young Socialists at their annual conference at Easter, and it is supported by the Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign. Both are Labour party groups. The central organisation was carried out by the Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign from its office in Labour party headquarters in Walworth road. It provided pupils throughout the country with 20,000 leaflets, published at Labour party headquarters, presumably with Labour party money. The Daily Telegraph suggests that the Labour party has provided that group with funds of about £4,000. That has not been denied—

Mr. Dave Nellist: More.

Mr. Greenway: That is significant. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us how much more. That could be important to the discussion.

Mr. Nellist: I am prepared to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I hope to make a speech myself. During the past four years the support given by the national executive committee of the Labour party and various trade unions, such as the National Union of Public Employees, to the campaign to win decent conditions for young workers on Government training schemes has exceeded £4,000, because it has involved subventions to organised lobbies of this House three years ago and in February, as well as conferences in Manchester and other parts of the country.

Mr. Greenway: I am talking about the strikes by schoolchildren. Although the hon. Gentleman broadened his remarks, I presume that a great deal of the money that he mentioned funded the organisation of those strikes. If the funds exceeded £4,000, that only helps to underline the serious nature of what the Labour party is doing.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) are joint presidents

of the Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign, and I understand that each of them contributes £40 a week to its funds. They are obviously heavily committed to its cause. I understand that Militant has a keen interest in it.

Mr. Nellist: We contribute £20 a month each.

Mr. Greenway: That is £40 between them. But what is a few pounds? It is the principle that is important. The country will recognise that substantial sums of money are being used to stir up unrest among children at school. They are being stirred up by people who are not schoolchildren, but who are in their 20s, 30s, and 40s.
On Merseyside, the strike of 4,000 schoolchildren took the form of a march to a rally addressed by the hon. Member for Broadgreen. It is a serious matter when Labour members of the Liverpool education committee vote unanimously to legalise truancy by guaranteeing the children immunity from victimisation.
I suppose that that means that if headmasters or teachers sought to bring the children back to reason, to talk to their parents about the silly action that they have taken in absenting themselves from their valuable studies for their future, or to punish them in any way, the Labour members of the Liverpool education committee—and they are in the majority — would ensure that they were not punished.
Hampstead school in London became heavily involved in the strike, and 4,500 pupils joined in the march. The car windows of two teachers were smashed and windows in the school were broken. After that exhibition, Paul Lennox — the chairman of Hampstead and Highgate Labour party Young Socialists—congratulated the Hampstead children on being
about the best organised in London in making the strike a success.
The Socialist Workers party was also involved. It issued a leaflet to the school on the very next day, headed
School kids fight back against YTS slave labour.
It stated:
The School kids strike was really one in the eye for Thatcher and her slave labour scheme. The panic it created amongst the headmistress and the school authorities shows our potential power.
That is militant speaking, is it not? It continues:
However, a one day strike will not defeat the Tories and all the crap they throw at us. To do this we need organisation in local schools to discuss how to build our own futures.
To attempt to subvert schoolchildren in that way is not only deplorable but dangerous, both to the children and to the future of our country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science should come to the House and assure us that the matter will be dealt with and that such organisations will be kept away from schools.
I am not suggesting that there should not be free debate and argument in schools about everything that is going on, including the YTS. Of course there should. But for people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond to manipulate children — that is what they are doing — is disgraceful, unforgiveable and a serious abuse of both education and democracy. Anyone who says that it is not obviously does not have any intention of giving the children the right to their own opinion—something that they are demanding from this House for themselves.
In some places the strikes were organised to such a pitch that some pupils were observed following pre-arranged signals. Young people are being manipulated by outsiders. I hope that by speaking strongly the Labour party will


disown and throw out such groups. It has been suggested that the Labour party did not know what was going on inside its headquarters. That is questionable, but if it is true, it shows the total incompetence of the Labour party and its complete unfitness for government.
I want to compare the recent school strikes with those in 1972, which I remember well because I was then the deputy headmaster of a comprehensive school in King's Cross, which had 1,100 boys—[Interruption]. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will have his chance to speak. I hope that he is not supporting Militant in its exploitation of children, but I should not be surprised if he were.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose —

Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be seeking to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In 1972, an organisation called the National Union of School Students was started at Rutherford comprehensive school in Marylebone road. It is a small comprehensive with about 700 boys. That organisation was started on the pretext that children were being forced to wear uniforms. The group organised a strike designed to end the wearing of school uniform and also to end the use of the cane. In a short time the use of the cane will be optional. It is significant that the recent strikes in Liverpool and Hampstead had as part of their aims an increase in the school uniform grant. Times have obviously changed.
In 1972, as I saw with my own eyes, groups of schoolchildren marched from one school to another over a period of three or four days calling children out on strike. The children got into a serious state of riot, and the more they took to rioting, the more serious and frightening the situation became.
Those behind the recent strikes of schoolchildren were attempting to unleash something that they could not control, a process that could be damaging to the nation, the children and our whole way of life—indeed, to our very democracy and our ability now to be debating the matter in the House. Such activity is outrageous and should be ended forthwith.
The aims of the national Union of School Students, the School Students Action Committee and the Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign are anarchistic, as are their publications. the House should not go into recess until we have examined the serious state of affairs resulting from this exploitation of children. That is why I have raised the matter.

Mr. Bruce Milian: I shall not comment on the subject that was raised by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). In other circumstances I would have dealt with the issues raised by other hon. Members, particularly that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the crisis affecting British Rail workshops, and the effect on the workshops in Glasgow, where there will be job losses of more than 1,000 and where the viability of the remaining workshop must seriously be in question.
We have been warning the Secretary of State for Scotland for several months of the impending crisis. I regret that there has not been the slightest sign of his doing

anything to try to avert the redundancies and, in particular, to protect the situation in Glasgow. However, that is on a par with the general neglect of the Government of the whole of the railway industry and in their attitude towards redundancies on the railways and in manufacturing industry more generally.
I wish to raise another subject of importance on which it is urgent to have a response from the Government before the House rises for the Whitsun recess. I hope that the Leader of the House is, to some extent at least, briefed on the matter, because yesterday I gave notice to the Scottish Office of my intention to raise it, when I drew attention to the fact that the Department of Health and Social Security was also involved.
The issue that I raise is a scandal involving the exploitation of housing benefit by slum landlords in Glasgow and elsewhere in the west of Scotland; and, for all I know, the abuse may be occurring in other parts of the country. It has been exposed in Glasgow this week by the Evening Times in a series of articles. I pay tribute to that newspaper and to the two journalists involved, Mike Hildrey and Jim Morrison, who have acted in the best traditions of investigative journalism. By their exposure of abuses of the housing benefit system in Glasgow by slum landlords they have performed an extremely useful public service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and I have been much involved in the matter in recent days, although I accept that the problem concerns hon. Members who represent other constituencies. I shall give two examples of what is happening, both of them from my constituency.
One case concerns a house which I have seen in recent days. The living conditions there are absolutely abominable. It is a tradgedy and disgrace that any family, much less a family with four young children, including a baby, should be living in such conditions. The name of my constituent is Mr Hamilton, who lives in Vicarsfield street in Govan.
For that deplorable property — in my opinion, accommodation that is completely unfit for human habitation — Mr. Hamilton is paying the landlords, Norman Properties (Glasgow) Limited—I shall come to that company in more detail shortly—£120 a month rent for a room and kitchen, to which must be added charges for rates and other matters. There is no kitchen, no proper bathroom and no hot water. The whole place is in an absolutely deplorable condition, yet Norman Properties is charging Mr. Hamilton that amount of rent.
Another case, also outlined by the Evening Times, is in an area of my constituency that I know well. Equally deplorable conditions apply. A single young person living in the house is being charged a staggering £196 a month, exclusive of rates, common charges and building insurance. As I say, the conditions in that property —I accept that the same can be said of properties in other constituencies—are deplorable.
This involves the exploitation of tenants who are, in most cases, disadvantaged for one reason or another. In any event, nobody should be allowed to live in such conditions, much less at rents of that magnitude. The rents in the cases to which I have referred, and in many others, for properties owned by this company are 10, 15 or 20 times higher than what would be fair rents under the fair rents system.


The whole position becomes obscene when we learn that the two directors of Norman Properties, Mr. and Mrs. Solomons, live in an area of Florida which is inhabited largely by millionaires. They are living in tremendous style off the backs of tenants, constituents of mine, and others in Glasgow, who are living in the most appalling conditions.
The company is supervised and run in Glasgow by their son, who also lives in considerable style in Glasgow, also on the basis of exploiting tenants living in absolutely abominable conditions. I find it difficult to speak calmly about the loathsome behaviour of the people running this dreadful company, and a number of other companies are involved in this racket.
The racket involves the rents being paid out of the public purse, for we are dealing with people who are unemployed and on supplementary benefit. The rents are being paid by the Government, by the DHSS, through the agency of the district council, which now administers housing benefits following changes made in recent years. These changes, which were pushed through in utter chaos by the Government, put the responsibility for these matters on to district councils, away from the DHSS.
I shall describe the way in which the system works. The DHSS certifies that the tenants, being on supplementary benefit, are entitled to housing benefit. The certificates go to the district council and the money for these exorbitant and extortionate rents are paid by the district council. All of the money for the rents in these cases is refunded to the district council by the DHSS.
Under this system, neither the DHSS nor the district council checks the properties to see whether they are habitable. Nor does anybody check to see whether the rents being charged bear any relation to the condition of the property. The DHSS hands over responsibility to the district council, after paying to the company to which I have referred — and other firms which are in on the same racket—eight, 10 or 12 weeks' rent in advance. That is paid to the landlords before the tenants move in.
There would be proper safeguards in an ideal world. The housing benefit regulations contain provisions to reduce rents if they are excessive and the Rent Act enables a tenant to apply to a fair rent tribunal. These safeguards have not worked. The provisions covering high rents should be enforced by the district council. The housing benefit chaos caused by the Government is linked to the financial penalties imposed on a district council if it tries to enforce housing benefit provisions. Enforcement adds to administrative costs, only some of which are refunded by the Government.
Many tenants live in fear and are harassed and intimidated by their landlords. The typical tenants are unemployed and receive supplementary or other benefits. Some are not secure tenants, but are tenants under a variety of arrangements and dodges designed to escape the security of tenure provisions of the Rent Acts. These tenants have rental agreements running for six months or 12 months at a time. This all means that they face the maximum psychological pressure. The tenants know that if they make waves their landlords may attempt to evict them. For those reasons, the district council has found it difficult to apply the excessive rent provisions. If the council applies those provisions, tenants might be placed in an even worse position and might be evicted.
Norman Properties and other companies like it behave in an uncompassionate and cruel way towards their

tenants. There is no question of dealing with tenants as ordinary human beings. They take the maximum amount of money from the taxpayer and do not give a damn for the tenants living in their properties.
The tenants can apply for a fair rent under the legislation, but, because of their fear of intimidation and harassment, it is unrealistic to expect them to take the initiative. There is no financial incentive for them to do so, because the rent has not been paid by them. It has been paid out of the public purse. Typically, the landlord asks for the rent to be paid direct to him, so the money does not even go through the tenant. The district council pays the rent direct to the landlord—another twist in the system exploited by the landlord. Landlords often send notices saying that the tenants are in arrears in paying their rent. I believe, from the evidence presented to me, that many of those notices are fraudulent and dishonest.
Another irony of the system is that if one of these unfortunate people happens to get a job he no longer has a home because an ordinary wage is not sufficient to pay the rents that are demanded, and paid out of the public purse. In some cases, people are too frightened to obtain employment. I have seen evidence that the landlord to whom I am referring in this case offers houses at lower rents to working people than to the unemployed, but even for those who work the rents are still exorbitant.
I am in favour of both the district council and the DHSS operating the existing laws rigorously. This is beginning to happen, but a change in the law in Scotland is needed to enable local authorities on their own initiative to go through the fair rents procedure. In England, section 68 of the Rent Act 1977 allows a local authority to step in to reduce a rent—not, however, to increase it. In Scotland a local authority has no locus in the matter, and this is another reason why it is reluctant to act.
The response of the landlords--loathsome creatures that they are—to the Evening Times articles has been to try to brazen things out. The response of the DHSS has been extraordinary. When asked why the DHSS should pay large sums of money to landlords in these cases, a senior DHSS official in Scotland made this remarkable statement:
Value for money is of no interest to us.
I trust that that view does not reflect official Government view.
I am glad that Glasgow district council has taken action. An all-party motion was passed today by the council condemning what has been happening and asking for the loophole in the Rent Acts to be closed. The district council has decided that it will not pay any more rent to Norman Properties. The council will have to take certain legal action and encourage tenants to go through the fair rents system if it is to maintain its attitude. The district council needs the co-operation of the DHSS, and this is where the Government come in. It is no use the district council saying, "We shall not pay these extortionate rents any more," if the DHSS keeps paying deposits or making other payments, thereby allowing exorbitant sums to be taken from the tenants—or, more accurately, from the public purse.
The district council has said that it will ensure that tenants are not put at risk because of any action that they have taken. Some of the abuses of the system were drawn to the Government's attention in the evidence given by the district council in July 1984 to the Housing Benefits Review Board.
I am glad that the police have been involved in this matter. A raid has been made on the premises and some documents have been taken away. So far as I am aware, no charges have been laid, but there is certainly evidence in some of the documents that I have seen of fraudulent practices affecting my constituents. I hope that the full force of the law will be brought down on these miserable landlords.
The Government's response has been the most extraordinary part of this case. Today, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for housing matters — the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) — made a complacent and insensitive statement. I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear what I have to say about him. He played down the issue, saying that he did not think there was a substantial problem. He said that the action of the DHSS was a matter not for him but for other Ministers and that he did not have any interest in it. He said that he did not have any evidence that there were widespread abuses. I understand that today the Evening Times has called that passing the buck. It is the most extraordinary example of that practice that I have seen. We are talking about public money. The Government are always asking us to save money. Local authorities and everyone else are lectured about that.
The money comes from the Department of Health and Social Security. Large sums of money are involved. No public purpose is being served. The money is lining the pockets of unscrupulous landlords. The Government must make a pledge to amend the Rent Acts. It would need only a simple one-clause Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and I do not intend to let the matter rest. If the Government will not introduce legislation, we shall see that a Bill is introduced and put into effect. If the Government can introduce emergency legislation on rates, they can introduce a simple one-clause Bill on this matter. It could go through the House quickly, with unanimous all-party support. It would not take up much of the House's time. What I have described is a scandal. I hope that the Government will take urgent action to deal with it.

Mr. John Stokes: The House should not adjourn for the spring recess until we have debated the state of the nation in its religious, moral and political aspects. We are debating on Ascension day, one of the great Christian festivals.
Recently, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who holds that office with such charm and distinction, was asked how we should commemorate the ending of the last war 40 years ago. He replied, rightly and properly, that we might do it in the same way as we celebrated VE day—"by going to church." I hope that we shall do that in St. Margaret's, perhaps in the late summer when the ending of the terrible war in the far east will be remembered.
The Government are doing the right things politically and economically, but they do not always claim moral authority for what they do. Inflation is evil and immoral. It is a form of theft by the Government from the citizens. It is a form of dishonesty at the highest level. However, our opponents claim that Government policy is wrong. They wish us, once again, to reflate, with all the ghastly consequences that we have so often seen. The Government

are correct to resist calls for reflation. We must wait for unemployment to fall—hard though that is—as it surely will fall, but we must not ruin our chances of recovery or make all our sacrifices of no avail by printing money once again.
I am disappointed that the Government sometimes appear as economists, calculators and supporters of laissez faire, when we are all aware that they are spending billions of pounds on public works and state benefits. Despite their rhetoric, the Government have not reduced taxation or public expenditure by very much. We are still protecting the poor, as Archbishop Laud and the Earl of Strafford did in the 17th century. We are not harsh Whigs, as our opponents claim, only looking after our own.
The people who complain now are from the well-heeled middle class. Our support comes more and more from the working class. There is no alternative to present Government policies if we are to catch the richer nations which are leaving us far behind. In no other way can we produce the wealth to pay for our welfare services.
The Government have at least two chances to show that they have a moral interest. One is by not allowing the Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, introduced by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), to lapse. I know that there are difficulties and precedents to overcome, but Government support would give a great signal to Christians everywhere in the kingdom that the Government are on their side.
The second opportunity is in the new arrangements for Sunday trading. I am not a supporter of the Lord's Day Observance Society. I am a cavalier, not a roundhead. I believe that the Sunday trading laws, with all their anomalies, need amending, but I do not want a continental Sunday in England. To me, the main point of Sunday is for all Christians in this land to go to church to worship God. Anything that stands in the way of that should be resisted by the Government.
Market forces are all very well. I believe generally in the good sense of market forces, but Christian forces should also be taken into account by the Government. Many of our social problems—the increase in crimes of violence, rape, drug-taking, and so on—stem from the lack of a religious and moral lead. The huge numbers of divorces and broken homes stem in part from a lack of sexual morality. The Government try to deal with some of those problems with the means that they have at their disposal. We heard some of those means proposed this afternoon by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The Government's efforts would be much more effective if there were a-moral claim behind their actions.
Like others, I was greatly relieved by the recent impressive and moving service in Westminster abbey. The sermon of the Archbishop of Canterbury was right for the occasion. It is right and essential that from time to time we have public ceremonies. They bring us together as a nation and show us and people throughout the world what type of people we are.
The Government are also under attack for their defence policies by a small but noisy minority. One would have thought that the years of peace under NATO would have quietened those critics. In his sermon, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it was right to resist Nazi aggression by force, yet CND supporters and others are not prepared to stand up to Soviet aggression. They press their views on the majority with a self-righteousness that I find displeasing. From time to time they use violence, as do the


women at Greenham common. They make an absurd differentiation between nuclear and conventional war; but conventional war is also horrible, as those of us who experienced it can testify.

Mr. Nellist: rose —

Mr. Stokes: I shall not give way. We have little time for the debate and we have been asked to make short speeches. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman served in the war.
I am sorry that we have not been given an opportunity before the recess to debate relations between church and state. At a time of moral chaos and confusion it is important that church and state should speak with one voice. Despite most people's generally increasing prosperity—apart from areas of unemployment—there is increasing crime, violence, lawlessness, broken homes, divorce, one-parent families and a lowering of standards of honesty and decency. Those matters cannot be dealt with by the Government and police forces alone. The Government must proclaim a moral standard. Leadership in those matters is required at every level. In particular, there must be leadership and a good example for the young to follow. Such leadership is being given by countless parish priests and by many people involved in voluntary bodies, but the bishops and the higher clergy seem strangely silent on those matters.
I know that it is easier to point to the state of affairs in central America, South Africa or other faraway places than it is to attempt to rebuke sin at home. That is what the bishops should be doing. They should be pointing the way to salvation through Christ and his church.

Mr. Corbyn: rose —

Mr. Stokes: I shall not give way. I have almost reached the end of my speech and the hon. Gentleman may himself be called.
Several new bishops are about to be appointed. It is devoutly to be hoped that they will be men of faith and courage, able to give a lead to the mass of the people who are now being brought up in a largely heathen society.
Another matter that will come before us soon is the review of social security benefits that is being undertaken by the Government. We are enjoined in scripture to look after the fatherless and the widows; but that does not mean that, for instance, the father of a family should not seek to provide for his wife and children. The state, in seeking to provide a safety net for the sick, the old, the infirm and those who cannot obtain work, must not weaken the personal responsibility of the head of the family.
Too often the so-called one-parent family, which costs the state so much, is the result of selfishness or self-indulgence by one or both parents. I hope that the bishops and the higher clergy will not rush to condemn the Government's new proposals for the social services. They should consider the Pope's stern words recently on all these matters in Holland.
If the Government's new proposals about social benefits are wise and in accordance with Christian principles, as I believe they will be, surely the Government should not apologise for them, but proclaim them for their moral soundness.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I regret the failure of the House to debate before the Whitsun recess

the erosion of political values and the decline of pluralism in politics. I am glad to be able to link what I want to say with the Home Secretary's quotation earlier from Oliver Wendell Holmes about the need to permit and encourage views opposite to one's own. I welcome that, not least because it makes a change from the equally valid quotation from Voltaire on the same subject which we tend to bandy about.
Although hon. Members of both Conservative and Labour persuasions assent to the acceptance aid even encouragement of values different from their own, the reality of what they do is different. The Conservatives as a party have made almost an industry of the exposure of what they believe to be illegitimate public expenditure.
The Conservative Centre for Policy Studies has recently published two booklets. "The New Corruption" seeks to identify what is happening in Labour-controlled councils where people who are employed by one authority are members of other authorities. I have much sympathy for councillors who have the problem of finding employers willing to allow their employees to have time off to serve on local authorities. The Conservative party implies that that is almost illegitimate.
The other pamphlet is called "Quangos Just Grow—political bodies in voluntary clothing". The self-same endeavour to draw out antipathy to what is happening in Labour-controlled local authorities was copied in Yorkshire by a leading member of the Conservative party, Lucille Campey, who produced a regional version of the list in the pamphlet. Unfortunately for her and he-- cause, the list included voluntary groups so patently beneficial to the community that the document was undermined. I pay tribute to the other Conservatives who, at a meeting of the Yorkshire regional Conservative party, criticised the document. It is interesting that the author herself was defeated by a Liberal at the recent county council election.
When matters are raised in this way Labour councils retaliate and assert that they are only doing for their class what the Conservatives have done for their supporters. Therefore, they intensify the exclusivity of their policy The paradox of the two approaches is that each provokes the other. Exposure of what is referred to as the new corruption breeds retaliation. Both sides are culpable in the diminution and erosion of political values. The result is deteriorating and dangerous political circumstances in which subservience to an exclusive partisan philosophy is necessary for grant aid from central or local government, We ought not to think about the House going into recess, even for a short period, until it has debated certain issues that are fundamental to our democratic values.
The recent sad case of the National Council for Civil Liberties is a vivid example of what is happening. In one sense I am glad that it happened so publicly, because I hope it will be a warning that will be heeded elsewhere. I am not optimistic, particularly when I read in a letter to The Guardian from the professor of politics at Leeds university a defence of the view that, once a majority within an organisation has taken a legitimate decision, the minority must accept it. It is precisely because of the danger of the tyranny of the majority that a body such as the NCCL is needed. For instance, many ethnic minorities have experienced to their cost over the years the crucial difficulty of obtaining civil rights for themselves within a majority community.
The dangers of the misuse of power are immense, In my own local authority, the Labour controlling group


trundles out Labour representative after Labour representative to open community facilities officially. At times it seems that only the repainting of a room is required for it to be opened officially by another representative of the controlling party who will cut a tape or make a speech. That is happening even when opposition members of the council have been involved with a project in their own community for many years. Even in such cases Labour members with less involvement carry out the official duties. I believe that is deliberate and that it is done for a purpose.
In Leeds, as elsewhere, partisan literature is produced and distributed at public expense, with a stream of photographs, articles and other material promoting only one party. That is being deliberately extended with individual newsletters for separate party constituencies. It is as if the people who have control over the use of resources in an authority are frightened of genuine debate and need instead to use public money illegitimately as a substitute for argument.
The Conservatives, of course, are not blameless. They are catching up fast. For instance, a leaflet produced recently by Cardiff city council is conveniently in bright blue. That is the first time that has happened. The document carries a message making essentially political points about finance, although it has been paid for by the rates.
The usual Conservative response is to control, constrict or abolish that with which it disagrees. That began with the ending of school milk in 1971, and continued with the Housing Finance Act 1972, the control of local authority rents in 1972, the removal of many water authorities from democratic accountability in 1974, and the removal of health powers, including ambulances, from local government in 1974. More recently we have had increasing direction of health authorities from the centre and the rate-capping of authorities that the Government believe are spending illegitimately. The latest action is the current effort to abolish the metropolitan county councils and the GLC.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was, as usual, clear and absolutely honest when he was quoted in The Guardian on 16 May:
The Labour party is the party of division. In its present form it represents a threat to the democratic values and institutions on which our parliamentary system is based. The GLC is typical of this new modem, divisive version of socialism. It must be defeated. So we shall abolish the GLC.
I reject that view and regard it as exceptionally dangerous to our whole democratic process. If a political movement cannot win support for its view at the appropriate level, it is illegitimate to use Big Brother to enforce its opinion. All of us in politics need to enhance political debate, and that involves encouraging the expression of contrary views.
For five years before I came to this House, I had the honour to be the general secretary of the Bradford Metopolitan Council for Voluntary Service. They were five fascinating years. It was a tremendous experience and highly educational. It did more for me, I suspect, than my 20 years in politics before that. Working under a Conservative-controlled council, then a Labour-controlled council, and latterly under a balanced council, I found that the voluntary sector was able to innovate. It became more aware of what it could do, it showed resilience under the

severe pressures of high unemployment and declining industry, and, above all, it learned how to be involved properly and democratically in the political process of the city.
I believe it is no accident that within the latest urban programme submissions from local authorities to the Government, the highest proportion of voluntary sector schemes come from two balanced councils—the London borough of Brent and Bradford city council. However, I do not believe that all are bad or badly motivated in other parties. On either side of the political divide there are people whose commitment is genuine, and that is why I raise these matters on the Adjournment today.
I believe that the Leader of the House is committed to pluralism in politics. We have a very fair response from him at business questions. I believe that he wishes to do his best to raise the standard of debate on serious issues inside and outside this House. I hope that, by raising matters in this way, and saying that I do not believe we should start the recess before debating them, I shall secure some favourable comments from the Leader of the House later in the debate.
An entrenched Labour supporter, Professor Bernard Crick, has written on the same problems with great force. In The Observer of 21 April 1985, he wrote about the local government powers that are to be taken if the current legislation goes through. He said:
I honestly say that I could fear my own party as much as the Thatcherites if she gets her way on this. There are great dangers in riding so roughly over constitutional conventions.
I agree with something that Professor Crick wrote on another occasion—that political values will always be keenly fought. There is little possibility of achieving a consensus on those values, but within our parliamentary democracy we must have a consensus on procedures. Unless we distinguish between those two objectives, I fear that our whole democratic process and political debate will decline so far that it may well become impossible to retrieve it, and we shall have strife across an ever-widening political divide. For that reason, I believe that the House should not adjourn in the way that is proposed.

Mr. Keith Best: On occasions such as this, when all of us ask the Leader of the House not to allow us to go into recess—but would be universally horrified if he said that he would not — there is an opportunity for us to deliver all those speeches that, frustratingly, we have not been able to deliver in former debates because we have been squeezed out, or for whatever other reason. I shall leave the House to determine for itself on which occasion I might have delivered this one.
Perhaps we should not go into recess at a time of such great political uncertainty. The actions of some politicians would be more understandable if they had taken place in March rather than in May, unless, unknown to me, hares have changed their habits.
Is not political philosophy sound? The Labour party has stood on its head over the sale of council houses, and I greatly welcome that, but it seems it is more successful than Paul Daniels in making policies disappear. Indeed, rather than forming a party called Centre Forward, perhaps it should form a party known as Goalee Group, because it is so used to scoring its own.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has now regurgitated the philosophy of nationalisation of land, which many of us thought had been buried years ago. According to the newspapers today, when he was asked what the attitude of the Labour party would be to his proposal, he said that it would be like meeting an old friend whom one thought was dead.
The problems to which I have referred are not to be found exclusively on the Opposition Benches. On the Conservative Benches is a new group which is highly critical of Government economic policies. At the same time, Ministers are telling us that all is well.
Perhaps this week's Economist, which has on the front page the caption "The voteless boom", may have got it almost right. It has an uncanny knack of noting the perceptions of people and translating them into words. We shall have growth of about 4 per cent. this year—the fastest since 1973 — when the International Monetary Fund forecasts that growth in the United States and Japan is decelerating, and stagnant in Germany at just over 2 per cent. In Britain, investment in manufacturing is increasing, yet there is a danger that the judgment of The Economist may be right when it states:
At bottom, though, voters are unimpressed by the Government's economic record, and for one big reason. Unemployment is still rising.
I speak with some passion on that matter, because I have the privilege of representing a constituency which suffers from 23 per cent. unemployment. We know that many demographic features have resulted in an increase in unemployment — the baby boom of the 1960s, the number of part-time women workers, and several other factors which I shall not go into in detail because that is not the gravamen of my speech.
It is right to remember also that employment is increasing, and perhaps we do not hear enough about that. Yet the canker of unemployment remains. It is important that all of us — particularly people in the country —should remember that the old belief that if the country is doing well the people are necessarily better off and happier, is no longer true. Undoubtedly some people are, especially those in work and those who are still obtaining wage settlements in excess of the rate of inflation. But that serves only to create greater division between the employed and the unemployed. That is why the forthcoming review of tax and benefits is so important.
A major service of simplification and integration could be achieved through a tax credit system—a reform for the future which was heralded many years ago. Yet we see only one form of benefit, child benefit, which was meant to be the start of a series of benefits in moving towards the concept of an integrated tax credit system. I hope that the Government will grasp that nettle. I hope that our present Chancellor of the Exchequer will go down in history as a great reforming Chancellor, with a vision of the future as to where benefits and tax should be integrated to the advantage of people as a whole.
Modern technology is at present another source of unemployment. Whatever it may provide by way of greater employment in the future, at present it is seen as destroying jobs, yet we must embrace it if we are to move forward. There was a welcome announcement yesterday that inventors in academic and Government laboratories are no longer obliged to give the British Technology Group first refusal in the exploitation of their ideas. They can now negotiate exploitation through their university or through

their own endeavours. That is a welcome step forward, although I believe that in the United Kingdom we still have not got absolutely right the empathy and relationship between academic research and commercial exploitation which is so successful in the United States. Therefore, we need to move forward on that point as well.
Without undermining our economy through massive expenditure leading to raging inflation, there has to be a duty on Government to use every endeavour to encourage greater employment. However, that is not exclusively a Government responsibility. There is a responsibility on those in work, and particularly their union representatives, to ensure that we do not lose competitiveness by increasing unit labour costs. Wages are still increasing in real terms. Those who seek to force through high wage claims in excess of the rate of inflation are entrenching unemployment for others.
There are two ways in which the Government can help to increase employment without risking greater inflation. The first is to reduce the cost to the employer. The Budget was a welcome acknowledgment that that is a good way of trying to increase the number of people who are employed. The cuts in employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget are a great help, but that could have been done far more imaginatively. Measures such as greater cuts in or total exemption from the costs of employing people in areas of high employment such as Anglesey and other parts of Wales, and also for young people under 20, could have directed the assistance to where it was most needed. That is what is needed now to ensure that we do not have unemployment black spots. There are several of those, regrettably, which lead to great misery and frustration, and an increasing sense of despair among our people. I should like to see a reduction in the costs to the employer on both a geographical and sectoral basis.
The other way to try to overcome unemployment is to help the growth of small businesses. The Government have tried many schemes. I pay tribute to those attempts. I hope that I am allowed to refer to the Principality, from which I come. It is good to see the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in his place. He will know what I am talking about. Wales is the land of small businesses. In 1982, 83 per cent. of manufacturing local units in Wales employed fewer than 200 people, a total of 31 per cent. of the Welsh population. Some 6,000 new small businesses were started in Wales between 1980 and 1983. The Small Firms Information Centre has been dealing with constantly increasing levels of inquiries, from 6,500 in 1978 to 16,500 in 1984.
My concern is whether such small businesses have sufficiently easy access to funds for setting up, investment and expansion. The United Kingdom has fewer Government agencies than elsewhere to aid the development of small businesses. I welcome the establishment of the Welsh Development Agency's venture capital fund, which now stands at £5·5 million. I congratulate the chief executive of the WDA, Mr. David Waterstone.
Let us look at where that finance is likely to go. The criteria for lending are a minimum of £50,000 and a maximum of £500,000, on a strictly commercial basis. The fund will aim to lend to less risky projects that are available and want to generate capital gains, and not income. The security requirements are strictly commercial. Normally, the fund will prefer existing companies


looking for project financing and require accounts going back as much as two to three years. I do not complain about a Government fund having to be careful where it puts its money. Nevertheless, that does not answer the problem of where the small business that wants to raise £15,000 or £20,000 is-to obtain money in a way that it can afford.
The loan guarantee scheme was another attempt to ensure that money could come to small businesses. It was set up on the Government's initiative with a view to promoting the initiatives from the public to start their own businesses. However, I hope that I am not regarded as unduly critical when I say that the loan guarantee scheme has done far more to help the banks than those who might get the money. It has given the banks the guarantee rather than the people who might wish to have access to the money. In general, the clearing banks that have become part of the scheme would have lent the money to the same projects in any event. They have simply been made more willing to do so as a result of the scheme because of the extra security that the scheme provides.
I suspect that every hon. Member could go around his constituency and find bank managers who, sadly, are not sufficiently trained in matters of commercial judgment to be able to make such a judgment properly when somebody comes along to ask for finance for a new venture. In rural areas one sees bank managers who are far too ready to lend money on the security of land. Now farmers are confronted with the problem of being heavily mortgaged, then they are suddenly confronted by cuts in milk quotas and so on. Bank managers have been prepared to lend money, but on safe security rather than to ventures that may have desperate need of money to be set up and to employ people.
I make no complaint about that, because it is not the bank's own money. It is the bank's investors' money. Those who leave their money in the bank would not be satisfied if they thought that the bank was making increasingly risky investments in companies. However, that does not alter the fact that that is not a ready source of available finance for small businesses.
Government grants are available. They are multifarious, and they are welcome, but we have seen moratoriums on Government grants, which make it difficult for people to rely on them. The frustration about that is manifest in many areas.
We have plenty of access to expertise from the management point of view. There is the Welsh Development Agency in Wales. We have an economic development unit and a business agent in Anglesey. All are prepared to go out and give the benefit of their experience in business, to help small businesses in planning their marketing technique and such matters. However, those people cannot offer money on terms that small businesses can afford. Effectively, the only way in which a small business can have access to finance is on strictly commercial terms with a bank, and that is very difficult.
In order to overcome that problem, we need either a Government fund offering small loans to small businesses on favourable terms — I would not favour that route because it is a Socialist route, which would build up many difficulties—or we need to shift the whole emphasis away from trying to give tax concessions to companies, to giving them to those who wish to invest their money in

them. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) has tabled a new clause to the Finance Bill, which is along those lines. It would enable small and medium-sized companies to issue tax-free bonds. The business expansion scheme adopted that concept. However, much more can and needs to be done to ensure that we can go down that route.
It is unfair for us to expect institutions that are dealing with other people's money to take risks in lending finance to small businesses. It is not unfair — indeed, it is necessary — to shift that risky burden to the investor himself. If one give fiscal incentives to the investor, the investor will respond, as the recent dramatic increase in the over-the-counter market has shown only too well. We must make it clear, however, that we are concerned about economic policy, not for its own sake, but purely as a means to achieve the happiness and unity of our people. We must make it clear that we are focusing our attention on that.
Politicians and people alike are aware of the need for a new vision of society for the 1990s and the turn of the century. That vision must be of a contented and not a divided society. That is why we must concentrate on the problem of unemployment. With a little more imagination and inventiveness I believe that we can provide that vision —but time is very short.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I hope that the House will not adjourn for the Whitsun recess without considering the collapse of the Insurance Corporation of Ireland, and especially its London operations, which will have great consequences for all of us unless we address ourselves to what can be done to tighten the regulations governing the City in this respect.
The whole House will agree that the London market is a major insurance centre and that anything that happens in it is thus of great importance. Provisions for supervision and regulation have greatly increased in recent years, and the Department of Trade and Industry has been charged to investigate whether there are sufficient solvency margins. The powers have evolved and expanded through various Acts of Parliament. The Insurance Companies (Amendment) Act 1973 gave the Department its present wide powers of intervention and the Companies Act made it compulsory for companies to be authorised by the Department and for management to be in the hands of fit and proper people. In addition, regulations were introduced providing that all authorised insurers must submit detailed annual reports to the Department. I am pleased to say that virtually all those developments have been consolidated in the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and in the 1981 regulations, so the basic framework is in place.
The question that needs to be answered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is whether the 85 people in that section of the Department can deal adequately with 850 authorised insurers and the extremely detailed returns submitted, some of which run to 100 pages or more. How can all those submissions be adequately investigated by so few staff?
In the EEC, solvency regulations are largely left to the insurance licensing authorities of individual member states. Each member state then looks at the companies


which have their head offices in that country, but it is also necessary to consider the activities of branch offices and whether the reserve ratio is satisfactory.
That is the background to the collapse of the Insurance Corporation of Ireland. The corporation has branch offices in London, Bristol and Manchester and, I believe—the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) will correct me if I am wrong — two offices in Northern Ireland. My greatest concern is about the London operation, which accounted for 70 per cent. of the corporation's worldwide network, including Europe, the United States and Ireland. The corporation's United Kingdom business made losses of between 25 million and 125 million Irish punts and perhaps much more, but some suggest that the losses may be as high as £500 million sterling, and even people who take a conservative view believe that the losses are at least £150 million.
How did such a collapse occur? The corporation gave the London office immense powers over the way in which it conducted business in an area in which there had long been a great deal of overcapacity — the reinsurance market. As a result of that overcapacity, very low rates had been quoted. The established companies in that area, however, were seeking to stabilise the rates and to achieve a more sensible relationship between the rates and the returns likely to accrue rather than constantly cutting rates to get business at any cost. That is the jungle into which the Insurance Corporation of Ireland—a small, perhaps rather naive, company—plunged and took on business that other companies were not prepared to take on and at rates which one commentator described as suicidal. As a result of that madness, it ran into its present troubles.
Although the Insurance Corporation of Ireland is a small company in United Kingdom terms, it is the only indigenous Irish company engaged in reinsurance. Why it allowed its London management to make such disastrous decisions, I do not know, but it certainly led the corporation into severe difficulties.
When the Irish authorities examined the figures submitted to them in July 1984, they realised that something was wrong because there was insufficient provision in the 1983 accounts to meet outstanding claims on the corporation's Irish business. The authorities were extremely worried and began to inquire into the London branch activites. The management offered assurances that all would be well, saying that there were difficulties but that measures were being taken to put things in order, and the parent company—the Allied Irish Bank—said that it was committing itself to 23 million Irish punts to cover the shortfall and to bring the corporation back to solvency.
In November 1984, the Irish authorities expressed concern about the thirteen fold increase in underwriting losses which had occurred in three years as a result of the London branch's activities. At that time the DTI was asked what the situation was. It is obvious that during that period the Department must have received the June figures. According to the Irish press, even when asked in November 1984 what was happening, particularly in London, the Department gave the all clear and said that the operations were fine. In fairness to the Department, it denied that it had said this, but it certainly felt that the company could carry on.
It is now a matter of record that the company collapsed. Consequently, I hope that the questions that I shall ask will be answered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Is it true that there will be an inquiry into this

company, particularly into its United Kingdom operations which caused the losses that occurred? Will such an inquiry be undertaken by the DTI? If so, what will be its terms of reference? Will its findings be published? Does the DTI consider that there are any gaps in the disclosure requirements for insurers with head offices in the United Kingdom or those which have branch offices in this country? Does the DTI consider that further powers, over and above those which exist in current legislation, are required to enforce its statutory supervisory functions? It is obvious that something was lacking in this case.
This matter is of particular concern as more and more insurers are setting up operations in the United Kingdom. It is therefore essential to know what is happening so that investors and employees can be kept informed. It is immensely important that the DTI should obtain all the data which are necessary to judge the operation of these companies.
Are the present disclosure requirements adequate? Changes are occurring in the market. It is vital to look at the reinsurance market, where the Irish company's troubles arose, because other companies have experienced difficulty due to competition and cuts in the rates that are charged.
The London market is a major international insurance centre. We must ensure that our house is put in order if that is what is required. We require more information in order to do so, because we have a responsibility to ensure that any insurer who operates in this country fulfils the strictest possible criteria so that we can prevent a collapse similar to that which occurred in the Insurance Corporation of Ireland. We require such information not to restore confidence in the industry, but to ensure that it is monitored and that such a collapse cannot occur again. I therefore hope that we shall be given the information that I have requested.

Mr. Greg Knight: Earlier, the Chair made a plea for short speeches, and that is advice which I intend to take.
The House should not adjourn for the Whitsuntide recess until we have discussed the problems caused by gipsies—if I used the proper noun, I would say the problems caused by itinerants—who take up residence on land without the owner's permission.
This is a nationally recurring problem which warrants action because of the nuisance which is caused, because of the criminal damage which often takes place and because of the acts of dishonesty committed by many itinerants, such as theft, burglary and offences involving motor vehicles. These offences are committed by people who pay neither rates nor taxes but who can make life a misery for those who do.
This problem affects businesses as well as house owners. A short time ago I received a letter from Derby Glass Windows, which states:
This letter concerns the premises we have on the Derby Trading Estate, Stores Road, Derby, with the re-appearance of the 'gypsies' onto this site.
We are experiencing totally unhygienic conditions here, with the land around our factory being used as toilet areas with human excreta all over the place. In addition, considerable damage is being done to vehicles left parked on our property, i.e. broken-off radio aerials, windscreen wipers stolen and petrol syphoned out, so much so, that these vehicles are having to be removed each night to other premises within our organization.


As you will appreciate we have had this problem in this area on and off over the past twelve months and taking into account the amount of rates that we pay to the city, we feel that something must be done immediately to alleviate this situation.
Some time after that, the Derby Evening Telegraph reported:
Scavenging itinerants have brought traffic chaos to Derby's Raynesway tip",
and it went on to say:
police had to be called to the tip after complaints from irate members of the public. The tip had to be closed until order was restored and the traffic jam the itinerants had created could be cleared".
These problems are by no means peculiar to the city of Derby, and we are entitled to ask what can be done to alleviate them.
Some people would argue that it would help if a district could obtain a designation under existing legislation. I accept that it would help to some extent, but at the end of the day we must realise that the current law is not satisfactory and that further action is needed.
As a result of a well-known case in which a man named Fagan broke into a famous bedroom, there was a review of the law of trespass of residential property. However, what I feel is needed—I think that the House would accept this—is a review of the law of trespass generally in order to prevent people from setting up mobile homes at will on another person's land and causing unnecessary nuisance, annoyance and disturbance.
The problem in Derby is currently not quite as bad as it has been in the past, but it recurs month after month, year after year without any general improvement. Action is needed to tackle the problem. I hope that the Leader of the House will agree to draw my remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment before we rise for the Whitsun recess.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Four hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye and I understand that the first Front Bench speaker intends to reply to the debate at about 8 o'clock. The arithmetic is obvious, and I hope that hon. Members will play fair.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall try to be brief, but the subject I wish to raise is important and I hope that the Leader of the House will draw it to the attention of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. This issue, which has recently featured in the news, is the problems faced by the Tamil people in Sri Lanka and the British Government's relationship with Sri Lanka.
I am sure that hon. Members will have seen today's report in The Guardian that 10 Tamils were killed in a backlash to a massacre. The Times also reported:
Tamils massacred in ferry attack".
Such stories have emerged almost daily from Sri Lanka over the past few months.
It is important to raise this subject, because the Prime Minister recently visited Sri Lanka. It is interesting to contrast her attitude towards the denial of human rights in Sri Lanka with the attitude of the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Poland. The Foreign Secretary visited the grave of Father Popieluszko and waxed lyrical about the need for improvements in the human rights record of the Polish Government. In her visit to Sri Lanka, the Prime Minister

refused to meet the human rights activists. She refused to meet those who are trying to draw attention to the denials of justice there and made no mention of the fact that a Catholic priest, Father Bastian, was gunned down on 6 January.
The crisis dates back to the summer of 1983, when there were enormous riots in Colombo and other cities in Sri Lanka and thousands were killed. The chauvinist-inspired riots were promoted by the army, the police and the security forces. However, the origins of the crisis date back further still. The British Government, or past British Governments, have had a role to play. Sri Lanka is a former colony. British companies made a great deal of money out of the Ceylon tea trade and other trades with that country, and on independence in 1948 a defence treaty was signed with the country. Successive British administrations in that country, I believe, deliberately divided the Sinhalese and Tamil people. That division has been exploited ever since, to the benefit of the current Government of Sri Lanka.
The reporting of events has often been limited. In 1958, massive violence throughout Sri Lanka was largely unreported in the Western press. The language question has been a major factor in Sri Lankan politics. There is now no official language, but there are incredible discrepancies in the use of the languages. For example, 99 per cent. of the army speak Sinhalese, yet soldiers are sent into Tamil areas allegedly to control the situation.
In a series of contitutional changes forced through the Sri Lankan Parliament, the Government have removed the civic rights of Mrs. Bandaranaike, the former Prime Minister. A referendum was carried out to extend the life of the Government. A Prevention of Terrorism Act, passed by Parliament, has damaged civil rights in the country. Although many people have been killed by the security forces during the present crisis, until 1984 there were no proper inquiries or post mortems after those deaths.
Perhaps more significantly, the constitutional amendments put through Parliament by the current Government have introduced the sixth amendment to the constitution, which demands that allegiance be sworn to the unity of the Sri Lankan state. The main opposition party representing Tamil people, the Tamil United Liberation Front, could not sign that allegiance because its party's policy had become one of supporting separatism. In such a disturbed situation, it is a serious matter that the largest party representing the Tamil minority is not even allowed to be represented in Parliament. The British Government have -had a hand in that. They have had a role to play.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) recently visited Sri Lanka. An interview with my hon. Friend in the Tamil Times on April 1985 noted that the purpose of the visit was to investigate allegations of human rights violations. My hon. Friend was asked:
What is the situation in this regard?
He replied:
As our report will make it clear, there is evidence of substantial violations of human rights in Sri Lanka. First of all, the Tamil people are being forced out of their homes by the government from the Prohibited Zone area and they have been turned into refugees in their own country. They are living in churches, temples, schools and garages. According to the government itself, there are about 100,000 refugees and that clearly is a conservative estimate. We were informed that Tamils are leaving at a rate of a thousand every day by boat to South India. There has been a complete dislocation of the fishing industry on which the coastal people largely depend. The


Prohibited Zone includes thickly populated areas and it has brought about unimaginable hardship and disruption to the life of the Tamil community.
In addition, my hon. Friend described how the Jaffna peninsula in the north of the country had become a security zone. There have been other reports of other violations of human rights in Sri Lanka from the International Commission of Jurists and from Amnesty International.
I visited Sri Lanka in April 1984. I was there for a week and met representatives of the Government, of the Opposition parties and, of the trade unions in Colombo. I also went to Kandy, to Trincomalee on the north-east coast and to Jaffna, where I experienced for the first time what the curfew and the presence of the army mean to the people.
The Government appeared to be entirely cynical about the round table talks which they were supposed to be having with opposition groups about a new constitution. The Government were quite prepared for the oppression by the army in Jaffna, and the killing of so many people, to continue. Naturally, the response of the Tamil people and parties is to call for the development of an Eelam state.
There is an international aspect. Trincomalee was a major harbour during the second world war, and could be one again. The United States Government give considerable support to the Government of Sri Lanka. A "Voice of America" radio station is being constructed there. According to a report in The Observer on 4 April, a special task force of police commandos at the disposal of the Sri Lankan Government have been trained by ex-SAS people from this country. The United Kingdom continues to give aid. The Prime Minister attended the opening of the Victoria dam and pledged further aid for the country. There is a military training arrangement and British Government support for police training in this country.
In an interview on the BBC overseas service, the Prime Minister said:
Democracy should not be given to those who wish to impose their will by force … but work with minorities who seek to work democratically.
The Government of Sri Lanka are not working democratically. They are oppressing and isolating the Tamil minority. The British Prime Minister appears to be incapable of understanding that.
On his return from Delhi, Mr. David Lange, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, said that there would have to be an international task force of some sort to maintain peace and order in Sri Lanka.
The British Government should respond to certain basic requests. First, the arms deals must end. The training arrangements must end. Support for the Sri Lankan Government must be discontinued. Secondly, the aid programme must be reconsidered. Aid is clearly being used—as a propaganda weapon as much as anything else—to prop up the Sri Lankan Government.
Thirdly, an enormous number of refugees have left Sri Lanka for India and other places, and a large number of Tamil people in London and other cities in this country have been allowed temporary and exceptional leave to remain here. Those people are at permanent risk. They are dangling on the end of a string. The British Government should recognise that those Tamils who have expressed a fear of returning are genuinely afraid of the consequence of returning to Sri Lanka and look to the British Government for permission to remain here permanently.
A Tamil woman whom I have known for some time spoke to me recently. She asked me not to reveal her name because of the possible repercussions. She told me that, in her family village, eight male members of her family were burnt alive during a recent raid by the army during which 38 other people were also killed, while the remaining villagers took refuge in the one remaining temple. The other temple had been burnt down during a previous army raid.
The issue is serious and important. The British Government, if they seriously support the call for human rights, and they are seriously interested in violations of human rights in other countries, can and should do something immediately to help the refugees from Sri Lanka and cease supporting a Government who use as a major propaganda weapon the approval that they have obtained from the British Government.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I do not think that Parliament should go on holiday until I have had a chance to reply to the what the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said two hours ago about the action on April 25 by 250,000 school students against mass industrial conscription by the Government onto the youth training scheme.
We heard an amazing speech from the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). He should be renamed the Tory Member for Stonehenge, East, given the progressive nature of his views. He talked about the so-called violence—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If the Boundary Commission hears you, that is what it might call his constituency.

Mr. Nellist: I do not need any interruptions from you, sunshine.
The hon. Member talked about the so-called violence of Greenham peace women. The Leader of the House might have noticed early-day motion 702 concerning the Waffen FCS of Tory students at Warwick university who have recently produced a song book, with the official logo of the Conservative party on the cover, which calls for the murder of the Greenham peace women. I should like the Leader of the House to comment on whether he thinks that gives the Tory party an acceptable modern image.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North, who is not with us at the moment, correctly said that the strike by school students was called—

Mr. Eric Forth: He is coming in now.

Mr. Nellist: All right, I can see.
The hon. Gentleman said that the strike was called at the Labour party Young Socialists conference at Easter by 200 school students. It was backed by the Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign of which I am the honorary president. The hon. Gentleman said that I gave a certain amount of money to that campaign. He is absolutely right. I have given it £20 a month since I came to Parliament: two years ago. I also give the Labour party £20 a month and my constituency party £80 a month. I give the Labour party Young Socialists £20 a month and I gave the families of striking miners £30 a week during the strike. I came here to live on ordinary workers' wages, unlike the millionaires and near-millionaires who occupy Conservative Benches.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not think that I have ever been called sunshine before.

Mr. Nellist: Have you finished?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not started. Will the hon. Gentleman get on with his speech?

Mr. Nellist: The hon. Member for Ealing, North also mentioned leaflets that were issued in parts of London and which he said came from the Socialist Workers party. He tried to besmirch the Labour party Young Socialist-backed Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign on account of the content of those leaflets. The 25 April strike was not anti-school, anti-teacher or anti-parent. It opposed YTS conscription and the Government who have destroyed the hopes of a generation of school leavers, 500,000 of whom have not worked since they left school under the Tory Government. It is an insult to 15 and 16-year-olds to portray YTS as a passport to jobs.

Mr. Greenway: rose —

Mr. Nellist: If the hon. Gentleman had been in all evening I should have given way, but time is short. In 1974, 5 per cent. of 16-year-olds not in full-time education were unemployed. That figure rose to 23 per cent. last year, and another 45 per cent. were on YTS. That means that 68 per cent. of 16-year-old school leavers are without a proper job. The majority of the increase has occurred during the past six years.
When Tory Members talk about school leavers being given lessons in politics, they should bear it in mind that the first lesson is given by the Tory Government, who refuse to guarantee them a right to a job when they leave school. The second lesson is coming up, with the so-called Fowler reviews. If YTS is so wonderful, why are the Government proposing to deny 237,000 16 and 17-year-olds the right to supplementary benefit and to conscript them onto that scheme? They are being conscripted onto a scheme which pays £26 a week. If that allowance had been increased in line with inflation or earnings during the past six years, it would have been £40 a week. The Government have robbed people on YTS of £14 a week.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North made allegations of truancy. It was not truancy on 25 April. It was organised, disciplined and responsible political protest. Where was the hon. Gentleman's protest in 1981 when every schoolchild in the country was given a day off school for the royal wedding? What damage did that do to their education? Not one Tory Member protested about every schoolchild having a day off when Charles and Diana got married in 1981. It is a bit ironic that headmasters complained about a half-day strike in England and Wales as disruptive of education and then handed out 10 or 20 times that denial of education by suspending children from school as punishment.
The Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign supported school students in a half-day strike by 15 and 16-year-olds. They are this year's school leavers. The strike was not aimed at 11 and 12-year-olds. Come the summer, 300,000 or 400,000 youngsters who have left school will not find one Tory or Liberal Member of Parliament worrying about the fact that they are permanently out of school, permanently out of education and permanently on the dole.
The strike was in support of Labour party policy established at last year's party conference by the Youth Trade Union Rights Campaign for a minimum allowance

of £55 a week on YTS, the right to join a trade union, a safe scheme fully covered by health and safety legislation and the right to a job at the end of the scheme. There will be a growing desire among those youngsters for a right to decide. If the Tories say that they are only to be chucked on the scrap heap of unemployment at 16, I shall maintain that they are old enough to have the vote. There will then be 2·7 million other voices joining those who are rising up against the Government.
It is far better for Labour Members, trade unionists, parents and others to support a half-day strike by young people and to draw them into the Labour trade union movement in opposition to the Government's plans for mass unemployment than to condemn that generation of school students to glue sniffing, heroin addiction or a repetition of the riots of 1981. That is what lies ahead of the kids leaving school this year and it is engendered by the demoralisation and despair of mass unemployment. The responsible action of those youngsters of 25 April brought them into the orbit of the Labour trade union movement.
I issue a warning to the Leader of the House and Tory Members. If the Government do not withdraw their plans for mass conscription onto YTS, come the autumn, two things are likely to happen. First, the protest by school students is likely to be four times the 250,000 who came out in April. Secondly, I have argued for three years that trade unions should ensure that YTS is not a scheme of exploitation of youngsters and that they have decent rates of pay, the right to join unions and to be safe. If, however, the Government introduce mass conscription for two years, my voice will be added to those who say that trade unions should boycott the scheme and ensure that it is brought down. That is responsible political progress against the Government which avoids the despair of drug addiction, suicides and a repetition of the riots of 1981. It deserves the support of every Labour Member.

Mr. Eric Forth: I should like my right hon. Friend to reconsider his proposals for the spring adjournment, because an important matter faces the Government in the context of the European Economic Community. I know that my right hon. Friend is well aware of it and I shall be most interested to receive his response.
My right hon. Friend will know that the committee which rejoices in the name "Ad Hoc Committee for Institutional Affairs", but which is more colloquially known as the Dooge committee, has drawn up a report which is to be considered by the European Council at its meeting next month. The report contains some important recommendations for the reorganisation of the institutional affairs of the EEC. It is based on an assumption that the fault or problem of the lack of what is called progress in the EEC is caused not by lack of political will but by lack of institutional arrangements. I do not want to digress into that argument, but if we work on the assumpiton that the problem of the EEC is institutional—I do not—it will be most important for the Government to take up a position on the matter as early as possible and in as organised a way as possible. I like to think that that will be done with the support of the House. That is why I want the House to have an opportunity to discuss it. I cannot go into any detail in the time available, but I should like to highlight two principal matters.
The first concerns what are called the principles of voting and covers the vexed question of majority voting as against the unanimity or veto principle in the EEC. It is interesting to read the Dooge committee report as opposed to reports of it. Page 25 says:
The majority of the Committee favour the adoption of the new general principle that decisons must be taken by a qualified or simple majority. Unanimity will still be required in certain exceptional cases, which will have to be distinctly fewer in number in relation to the present Treaties, the list of such cases being restrictive.
That is an intriguing example of Eurospeak, which contains a germ of a problem. In some circles there is a wish to move towards majority voting, with the possibility of a veto in exceptional cases.
More important, under the title of "The method" on page 33, the Dooge committee proposes that a conference of Government representatives of the member states should be convened in the near future. That proposal will face my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she goes to Milan. The conference will be asked to negotiate a draft European union treaty based, among other things, on what is known as the Spinelli draft treaty and the Dooge document. The conclusion of the recommendation states:
The very decision of the Heads of State or of Government to convene such a Conference would have great symbolic value and would represent the initial act of European Union.
I hope that my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister will think long, hard and carefully whether to accept the terms of reference of the suggested conference in the terms in which it is put in the Dooge committee report, and to go to such a conference, which will involve a pre-commitment to the idea that we need to progress to the so-called European union. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will respond to those questions this evening.

8 pm

Mr. Alan Williams: The term normally applied to debates on these occasions is "wide-ranging", but the speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) dwarfed our proceedings. In the space of six minutes he managed to cover bishops, defence, embryos, Sunday trading, the economy, the social security review system, lawlessness, violence and morality. It was an exercise in flexibility, if not in profundity. I was saddened for him when I heard his description of the moral chaos and evil society to which he sees our country reduced under the Administration that he supports.
The hon. Gentleman was guilty of a slight understatement when he said that he was sorry that the Government had not reduced taxation much. Reality hardly bears out his comment because taxation, far from being reduced, has increased by £21 billion a year since the Government came to office. The financial chaos produced by the Government is such that one must earn more than £18,000 a year to reap any benefit under their tax cuts. Despite cuts in every other area, they felt able to give £3,000 million a year to the top 5 per cent. income earners. I have no intention of pursuing all the remaining points made by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) also made an intriguing contribution. He said that investment in the United Kingdom was increasing, but he overlooked the fact that since 1979 it has fallen by 41 per cent., or £3,100 million. It has subsequently recovered a pathetic 7 or 8 per

cent., but it is still one third below its 1979 level. The hon. Gentleman said that employment is increasing, but male employment continues to fall. Any increase in jobs, as has been revealed by the current edition of Lloyds Bank Bulletin, is in part-time jobs, most of which are for women. Although one is glad to see those opportunities, we are seeing a poor trade-off of part-time jobs being created and full-time jobs disappearing.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman is not eager to return to his constituency and why he would prefer it if we incarcerated him in the House. During the past 12 months unemployment has increased by 9·4 per cent:. in his constituency under the Government whom he supports, and it has increased by 16 per cent. since June 1983. Unemployment stands at 22 per cent. in Holyhead. The hon. Gentleman said that Wales had become a land of small businesses, which used not to be true. That is true now because the Tory Government have killed off the larger businesses. According to the latest edition of the National Westminster Bank Review, 30 per cent. of manufacturing employment has disappeared since 1979.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made an intervention which purported to be in defence of education. It was a bit ripe coming from a supporter of a Government who have done more than any other to destroy public education, force teachers into direct action, which is not their natural instinct, massively downgrade teachers' pay relativities, drive the best teachers from the profession, and leave state schools short of books, while receiving £12,000 million a year in oil revenues from the North sea.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) revealed a singularly disturbing position relating to the exploitation of our desperate housing shortage. He highlighted the consequences of the Government's failure to sustain a building programme. The result is that people are thrown into the hands of parasites, such as the Solomons, who sound utterly evil. I hope that they will evenutally get their just desserts. However, that is the reality of the market-place economy. It is exactly the sort of morality that the Government seek to encourage in the economy and which the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge deplored. We expect the Scottish Office to introduce legislation to ensure that the same protections are available in Scotland through local authorities as are already available in England and Wales.
I shall take the advice of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who said that we all learn slowly and painfully in Northern Ireland. I admit that I do not claim great expertise in that area, and I shall leave it to the Leader of the House to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's points, most of which were directed at the Government.
We had two speeches about today's announcement of the cuts in British Rail. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) apologised to the Leader of the House, because he could not be present for the wind-up. He is presenting medals at a cup final of the unemployed in Birmingham. He and the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) highlighted the tragic position created by the announcement, not only in Swindon, but in Glasgow. As the hon. Gentleman suggested. it is poetically sad that on this, the 150th anniversary of the Great Western railway, we witness effectively the closure of the railway town of Swindon. As a youngster from south Wales travelling through Swindon to London and looking


at the great yards there, I always saw it as the symbol of railways in the United Kingdom. The House must make it clear to British Rail that we find it utterly unacceptable for it to place orders for 1,500 locomotives overseas. We cannot accept that. It is no good saying that foreign countries have the know-how. As my hon. Friend said, if we do not start to develop the know-how, we shall never get an opportunity in the export markets, to which British Rail Engineering Ltd. is supposedly looking.
It seems strange that, having built the railways of the world, we must now go abroad to buy a few locomotives. We were the workshop of the world, but now we have had our first deficit on manufacturing trade since the Napoleonic revolution. In 1980, the Government inherited a surplus of El billion of non-oil visible trade, which in the space of four years they managed to turn into a deficit of £l1 billion. I hope that the Government will ensure that whatever help can be given is given to Swindon and Glasgow.
As my hon. Friend intimated, the position is in contrast to the forecasts of BREL as recently as 1981, and is an indictment of our low level of economic activity, against expectations, caused by the Government's policy of continuous dęflation.
This has been a fascinating debate. I apologise to those of my hon. Friends whose speeches I have not been able to mention, but I must now give the Leader of the House an opportunity to answer everyone.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I agree with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that this has been a wide-ranging debate. Therefore, I hope that he will allow me to comment on his speech indirectly through the medium of the speeches made by Back-Bench Members.
I begin with the first contribution to the debate, from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), about the Northern Ireland Act 1974, the means whereby it is renewed annually and his desire that the Province should be allowed to return to constitutional normality, thus enabling its laws to be made by the House in the same way as laws for the other parts of the Union are made, and that it should possess responsible local government. I have no doubt that, in that context, he would wish us to consider the fact that the Province is now fully represented in the House. Those who have been privileged to come here to represent the Province have done so with such attention and zeal that it gives the most effective demonstration to other hon. Members of the true desire of those from the Province to have the full and unblemished status of members of the Union. I shall communicate his observations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) mentioned a problem that affected his con-stituency, although I suspect that it goes rather wider. It would not surprise me if, in due course, we discovered that the practice was happening outside west central Scotland. He said that the problem was given effective exposure by the investigative techniques of the Evening Times He aired the problem most effectively, albeit to a somewhat thin House. None the less, no one could but be seized of the social issues implicit in what is happening. It would

not be appropriate for me to comment on the details, not least because I have been advised that there may be legal proceedings against the company at the heart of the reports, but I understand exactly the points that he made and his anxiety that there should be legislation on the matter. I shall ensure that his comments are reported to my ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office.
I very much appreciated the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). Of course, they excite some hilarity, but every time that someone has something worthwhile to say in the House, it almost certainly excites a reaction. If it is just one more example of the consensual porridge, it passes undigested and unnoticed.
I could pick out several points that my hon. Friend raised, but perhaps he will allow me to confine myself to his concern about powerful forces in society—one could call them the moral forces in society—and about the limited extent to which they can be conditioned by Government or by the police. He is right in that context to point to the tremendous potential power that could be effected by the churches. I was interested to hear him emphasise the fact that the church at parish level was proving much more effective in giving leadership in such matters than was the church at episcopal level. I shall not enter into that highly dangerous controversy, but I shall say this. When one considers the importance of the church in influencing social affairs, I think, among others, of Bishop Temple, whose ability to impart social influence was matched by the extent to which he secured respect in spiritual matters. That is a healthy reminder in the context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) mentioned the proposed closures and redundancies affecting British Rail Engineering Ltd. at Swindon and possibly elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon made an effective and moving speech and mentioned the serious constituency interest that is involved. His speech was the more impressive because it mentioned a future in which there was a diversification away from the existing dependence on railways, as well as a proper recognition of the part that the railways have played hitherto.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said that he could not be here for the conclusion of the debate, and I have a note from him to that effect. I am not in a small-minded mood this evening, but he could have confirmed without doubt that he would make the journey by rail. However, he chose not to do so. I say that because there was much discussion about the extent to which we all use the railways.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) formed a charming partnership, from contrasting positions, in talking about the school strikes and the role of Militant Tendency in promoting them.

Mr. Nellist: Where is he?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman's sparring partner explained to me that he cannot be here, and I am sure that we all charitably understand why.
In the absence of my hon. Friend, may I say that I believe he overdoes his anxieties on this problem. I do not look across at Militant Tendency and see its representatives as the Jesuits of Socialism, who say, "Give me the


child and I will give you the man." However, they become a little carried away about their role in the political scene as the leaders of those children's crusades. As I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, my unease was somewhat reinforced. I am one of his greatest fans, and I hope that he will long be here as the acceptable face of Militant Tendency. There is a studied avoidance of subtlety in his comments that I find very encouraging.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) made a charming and philosophical speech about the importance of pluralism in politics and the problems of dealing with minorities. For a party which believes that it is liberating itself from a minority status, that shows a certain lack of self-confidence. However, I leave that to one side. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that one of the most difficult tasks in the House is balancing our procedures so that minority interests believe that they have legitimate representation. I hope that he will be encouraged by the fact that we shall soon present Standing Orders on Opposition time.
I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the most hard-done-by minority in the House of Commons are Government Back-Bench Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' If I cannot play to my own gallery on this occasion, when can I? I make that observation because it is a factor that is overlooked when we try to construct a balance that enables the good conduct of our procedures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) made a powerful speech about unemployment and the importance of measures to secure its reduction, not least in his constituency. He explained why he cannot be with us now. His arguments were beguiling, although I was not all that convinced that we should have as much regional differentiation in fiscal matters as he advocated. However, his approach to the problem was constructive, and it enabled him to make in this debate a speech that I am sure he would have made otherwise in an economic debate. He invited us to guess in which debate the speech would have been made if he had not used this useful opportunity for Back-Bench Members.
The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) was worried about the insurance industry. As a good Socialist, he talked about the Insurance Corporation of Ireland rather than about Lloyd's. That point was made by one of my hon. Friends earlier this afternoon, but all aspects of the problem and of our position as a nation

harbouring a successful service sector turn upon there being confidence, which occasionally has to be restored by Government involvement. The hon. Gentleman is inviting that, and I shall see that his remarks are put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) raised the problems of itinerants. I cannot think of any topic more likely to release a flood of letters should one have that particular problem in one's constituency. I speak from recent experience, and I can understand why my hon. Friend has sought this occasion to raise this topic. However, I am anxious not to say anything that means that I shall be the recipient of another dose of correspondence on this matter, but I shall see that my luckless colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment is appraised of the point raised by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has explained that he cannot be here. I make no complaint, because he is not here to interrupt me. He made a moving speech outlining the tragedies between the communities that have befallen Sri Lanka. I shall see that his speech is drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) drew the attention of the House not only to the content of the Dooge committee report, but to the fact that the very modalities may imply commitments that are not perceived in the House. I am pleased that he has drawn my attention to that point, and I shall see that it becomes the possession of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
Perhaps it is appropriate that I should conclude with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire because it demonstrates the characteristics of these debates. They stretch from perhaps the most mundane, albeit important. constituency interests to the wider international affairs that are at the heart of our proceedings. If the motion is passed, we shall have the chance to go away and have a break of 10 days or so and come back to that fragile period of June and July when all the really hardened parliamentarians look forward to blood sports at their most gory.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday 24th May do adjourn until Monday 3rd June, and the House shall not adjourn on Friday 24th May until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Orders of the Day — Administration of Justice Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In introducing the Second Reading debate on this Bill in the other place, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor described the Bill as covering a wide range of disparate subjects with, like Mr. Churchill's blancmange, no central theme. The House will well appreciate the force of this description—the 62 clauses and eight schedules of the Bill will make a number of small, helpful, uncontroversial and unconnected changes as well as, more substantially, extending the Law Society's disciplinary powers and enabling licensed conveyancers who are not solicitors to undertake conveyancing for reward. I will not delay the House with an exposition of the overriding aims of the Bill or of the sources from which its provisions are drawn. Although it has no central theme, it will introduce a number of changes of a good legal housekeeping nature and other changes in the law that I hope will be welcomed in all parts of the House.
A number of moves and proposals are in train to improve the existing system of professional discipline imposed upon solicitors and the handling of complaints against them. The proposals contained in part I are perhaps the most important and immediate of these, but they are by no means the only significant ones.
There is a simple reason for this. The Government do not seek a direct role in this area. We believe that the existence, strength and vitality of the independent legal profession, and public confidence in it, are fundamental to the freedom under the law on which our parliamentary democracy depends. It is therefore to the Law Society that we must look to maintain the high levels of conduct, the standards of service and the collective discipline that we expect from solicitors. It has a central, but far from sole, function in the operation of the present arrangements for preserving those standards, and with that goes an obligation to ensure that those arrangements are working effectively and to propose or make improvements and extensions when that is necessary.
The Law Society is making efforts in three directions. First, over recent years it has set about improving its in-house arrangements. Secondly, it seeks the agreement of Parliament for extending and improving the existing legislation. Thirdly, it is planning for the future.
On the first of these—what the society has itself been doing—there has been criticism that the society has not been as active or as positive in response to criticism of solicitors as it might have been. To some extent, that is the result of the limitations of its statutory role — investigating, adjudicating and "prosecuting" before the solicitors disciplinary tribunal allegations of professional misconduct by a solicitor — which the Bill seeks to extend. In part, it follows from the way in which the society has seen it right to operate that role. For instance, where, as often happens, a case involves allegations of professional misconduct as well as matters that fall to be

resolved by a court, the society had until recently taken the view that the professional proceedings should not progress until the court action had been determined.
In many cases that must be right, as simultaneous proceedings would be difficult and carry risk of mutual prejudice. The society has also rightly been very conscious that it is only to a court action that the client can look for damages, and it has been anxious to do nothing that might adversely alter that right. But any such suspension must always involve some delay. The reasons for it are not always understood and it is not invariably necessary. The society has therefore decided that the existence of court action should not be an automatic bar to disciplinary proceedings, each case being considered in the light of its particular circumstances.
The society has also been seeking to improve and strengthen both the resources devoted to handling complaints and their presentation to the public. More staff, of higher grade, have been taken on. Working procedures and management responsibilities have been clarified and strengthened. Work is now assisted by computer. The phrasing of letters to the public and published pamphlets has been reworded, in consultation with the consumer bodies.
The society has recognised the importance for some people of having someone with whom to talk through their problems, and to organise the more complex ones in ways that a complaints system can handle, and it is setting up an interview panel for this purpose.
The quest for improved standards is not confined to this sector. The society is about to publish the first batch of written professional standards covering wide areas of a solicitor's practice, as recommended by the Benson royal commission. Improvements are being sought in professional education both generally and in specialist areas, through initiatives such as the new continuing education service and the development of a practice management service.
The Law Society has therefore demonstrated its desire and ability to discharge its public responsibilities in a determined and up-to-date way within, as it were, its own walls. But much of the disciplinary system is provided for by statute and any change therefore requires primary legislation.
The society has therefore made proposals for changing the statutory provision, and the Government have decided that it would be in the public interest to help forward those proposals by finding space in the legislative programme for them. We have therefore accepted responsibility for the proposals contained in part I of the present Bill.
Perhaps one of the two most far-reaching changes in this part is contained in clause 1, which introduces a new section 44A into the Solicitors Act 1974, making a major addition to the range of available remedies where something has gone wrong between a solicitor and his client.
I think I should point out here that the various sanctions that a solicitor faces are greater in variety and power than those ranged against any other profession. First, the High Court has an inherent jurisdiction over him as one of its officers and may strike him off the roll or penalise him in costs. The keystone of the professional disciplinary system is the statutory solicitors disciplinary tribunal, which deals with cases of conduct unbefitting a solicitor. It has both solicitor and lay members and is independent of any other organ.
The more minor misconduct matters may be dealt with by the Law Society, which has a range of remedies, such as the imposition of conditions on practising certificates. It also investigates and acts in the majority of cases before the tribunal. But that has been the limit of the society's disciplinary role hitherto, and recourse for a financial remedy has been by way of an action for damages before the courts, or seeking to have the bill reduced by the formal process of a remuneration certificate or taxation.
All those measures provide necessarily diverse remedies for what are inevitably diverse problems. But there has been an important gap, because all the measures in this list tend to be of greater use where the problems are serious, and where comparatively large sums of money are at stake. Where this was not so—either because the financial loss has not been great enough to warrant an action for negligence, or perhaps because inadequate service would not even have given rise to a cause of action —there was no help through the courts, and no place in the society's powers for it to assist either.
Clause 1 makes a significant change to that position by extending the society's regulatory powers to give it a wholly new function. Where work has not met the standard which could reasonably be expected of a solicitor, the society will be able to order that he should reduce or repay all or part of his bill, or carry out specified items of work.
The society is already planning to publish—before this new jurisdiction comes into force — written professional standards. Those cannot realistically hope to cover the whole wide and diverse area of practice, but they will cover most areas and provide important clarification of what is expected of a solicitor and, therefore, provide important background to the new jurisdiction.
Failure to comply with the society's order will be a disciplinary matter to be dealt with by the disciplinary tribunal, whose orders are enforceable as if made by the High Court. I should perhaps mention that we hope that it is possible to improve the Bill by simplifying the disposal of cases that give rise to misconduct and the new shoddy work jurisdiction, and an amendment will be brought forward in Committee.
Clause 2 makes a significant contribution to making the society's investigation of complaints more effective by inserting a further new section into the principal Act, under which the society may compel a solicitor to produce his case files. Under the Solicitors Act 1974, that power is restricted to cases where there has been undue delay in dealing with a matter, so that the files can be given to another solicitor to complete the work. It is now extended to cover cases in which it is necessary for the society to examine papers for the purpose of investigating a complaint. That power will provide a useful evidential tool in matters of misconduct, but, equally importantly, will be the starting point in investigating complaints of shoddy work.
Perhaps the other most significant development is in schedule 1. Hitherto, the only involvement in the existing system of persons who are not lawyers has been outside the Law Society. The solicitors disciplinary tribunal must, as I have indicated, sit with at least one lay member. Overseeing the whole operation of the society is, of course, the lay observer, who has powers under the 1974 Act to investigate the society's handling of a complaint and makes an annual report to the Lord Chancellor, which is laid before Parliament.
Under the Act, the society is obliged to consider any report or recommendation received from a lay observer and to notify him of any action taken in consequence. The society has decided that it should take these developments a stage further, believing that it would help in discharging its duties in the public interest to have a wider measure of representation in the committee or committees which investigate and adjudicate on complaints. Schedule 1 provides for the society to appoint to those committees as full members both solicitors who are not members of the council and laymen from outside the profession. It is intended that the Master of the Rolls should make the nominations. In fact, he has already put forward his first list of names in advance of the legislation, and the society has invited those people to take part in meetings. They have been doing so since last November, and have been playing an increasingly valuable role.
Apart from the provisions relating to bad work, the Bill also makes changes in the arrangements relating to practising certificates. Section 12 of the 1974 Act gives the society a discretion to impose conditions upon the annual practising certificate. That discretion can at present be exercised only when a certificate is next applied for, not in relation to the one currently in force.
The power is extended by clauses 3 and 4. First, it will now be exercisable where a solicitor has failed to provide accountants' reports within the time required. Secondly, the Act is amended to make it clear that the society has power to impose as a condition on a certificate specified steps—which may or may not cost the solicitor money. For instance, the society would be able to require that a practice management service should be consulted and its recommendations complied with, or that retraining be undertaken. Thirdly, in circumstances where urgent action is appropriate, the society is now enabled to impose conditions on an existing practice certificate, and it will not have to wait for its expiry to impose them on the next.
Clause 6 and schedule 1 make minor amendments to the existing legislation.
Those are, in brief, the most significant of the immediate steps that the society has taken, or for which it is seeking the approval of Parliament. But that is not all that is in contemplation. The society has drawn up plans, on which it is now consulting interested bodies, for a system of arbitration for small claims for damages, which may well be a useful addition to the existing repertoire of remedies. That—like all the other changes in train—will, however, sharpen the need for dissatisfied clients to be adequately advised of the range of available remedies and to select the one which would be most appropriate. To ensure that that is done, the society is reviewing the operation of its negligence panel, whose ability to provide experienced and sympathetic advice to those who have problems in this area has been one of the more welcome developments over recent years.
The society has commissioned management consultants to advise it on its functions and structure. They have been specifically asked to consider in general the way in which complaints against solicitors are handled. Hon. Members may be aware that the consultants have recently issued a consultation paper, which canvasses a number of options in this area and in others, which are now being evaluated.
All of those show something of the new enterprise in this area, together with a number of major contributions


to the remedies available to dissatisfied clients, which will be a major improvement in the services available to the public.
Part II of the Bill establishes a framework for enabling non-solicitors to compete with solicitors for conveyancing work. It gives effect to the main recommendations of the Farrand committee's first report, which was published last September. The House will recall that the Farrand committee, as it became known, was, established in February of last year following the withdrawal of the House Buyers Bill, which had obtained a Second Reading in this House some two months earlier. The committee was asked to advise on the tests of competence and other requirements needed to ensure adequate consumer protection when non-solicitor conveyancers were per-mitted to compete for the work.
Despite the untimely death of its original chairman, Professor Street, the committee produced its report remarkably quickly. On all substantial matters, the committee was unanimous in its conclusions. That was a considerable achievement when one remembers the wide variety of interest groups that were represented on the Farrand committee.
The committee's terms of reference, which were of course agreed by the sponsors of the House Buyers Bill, reflected the concern, which I believe is shared by all in this House, that care must be taken to ensure that consumer protection is maintained when competition is extended in the area of buying and selling houses.
The Government are committed to increasing competition wherever possible. That policy applies to the provision of services, such as conveyancing, as well as to consumer goods. We have already made significant progress. During the last year or so, the greater freedom given to individual solicitors to advertise their charges has provided an unprecedented stimulus to increased competition. Charges have fallen by about 30 per cent. The Bill injects a further element of competition by extending the right to undertake conveyancing for reward to properly qualified non-solicitors.
But, in extending competition in that area, we must, of course, be careful not to sacrifice consumer protection. For the vast majority of the population, house purchase represents the single largest investment of their lives. It often involves the commitment of their entire life savings and a substantial portion of current income for many years. It is thus essential to maintain protection from incompetence and dishonesty. Some restrictions of competition in that area are, therefore, necessary.
The approach taken by the Farrand committee is, in our view, the right one. In paragraph 1·35 of its report, it said:
The risks to the consumer are too great to permit market forces alone to control entrance to … the conveyancing market. Our approach in considering the safeguards needed for non-solicitors to undertake conveyancing has thus been to propose certain essential restrictions on competition, although these are intended to go no wider than is necessary to ensure adequate consumer protection.
The rules to be made under part II of this Bill will set the necessary minimum safeguards sufficient to protect the consumer without undermining the impact of greater competition.
Clause 8 establishes the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which will be responsible for ensuring the competence and integrity of those who seek to practise as

licensed conveyancers. The following clauses give the council the requisite powers and responsibilities. It will be for the council to determine such matters as the necessary training and financial requirements and rules of conduct. The rules made by the council will require the Lord Chancellor's concurrence. That will enable us to ensure that the requirements set by the council are neither unduly restrictive nor inadequate to protect the consumer.
It remains our intention to legislate in the next Session with regard to the position of employed solicitors working for banks. building societies and other institutions.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Government have formed a view of the recommendations in the second Farrand report and whether they will look with favour on the inclusion in the Bill of some of those recommendations, which seem necessary if the benefits of the first report are to be given full effect, particularly to reduce the cost of conveyancing?

The Attorney-General: That is a lengthy report of well over 100 pages, with many extremely detailed recommendations. I suggest that the present measure is large enough as it is. The second report is still under consideration, there being a great deal in it. There is no intention to increase the size of this measure to reflect the second report, which was published only at the beginning of this year.
The form of that legislation—I am speaking of next Session — will take into account the need to protect consumers against prejudice resulting from any conflict of interest and will be drafted in the light of our recent consultations on that subject, which to some extent reflects the anxiety shown on Second Reading of the original measure. Consideration will also have to be given to the differences in Scots law and practice in this area.
Before I leave this subject I should mention clause 5 which falls into part I of the Bill. This clause rationalises the restrictions on conveyancing for reward. First, it extends the restriction to the preparation of the contract —which is the stage at which protection is most needed — and, secondly, it makes it clear that no offence is committed where a qualified person directs and supervises an employee to carry out conveyancing work.
The licensed conveyancing provisions of the Bill will introduce greater competition into the provision of conveyancing services. Solicitors are now competing actively with each other. The Bill injects an additional element of competition, and it does so without lowering the standards of consumer protection.

Mr. Ken Weetch: Last year the Government gave an undertaking in a written answer that they were in favour of banks and building societies undertaking conveyancing. There is considerable speculation in today's press whether that undertaking still holds. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to say officially that the undertaking still stands, but that he is considering the method by which it can be brought about, not the principle underlining the issue?

The Attorney-General: I cannot give that undertaking, because, as I said earlier, anxiety was expressed by hon. Members on Second Reading about what could be a conflict of interest and the need to protect the consumer.


I am not saying that every speaker in that debate took that view, but it was expressed clearly and powerfully, for example, by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), on behalf of the alliance by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and by many other hon. Members.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose —

The Attorney-General: I am dealing with the last intervention. I promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
We want to get this matter right. I can only say that we shall introduce legislation, but that the exact scope of it is not at the moment decided.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I was alarmed to hear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not give an undertaking. But that may be unnecessary because the Solicitor-General has already given such an undertaking. He gave it to me on 12 January 1984 in a letter in which he wrote:
We are committed to legislation to enable solicitors employed by organisations such as building societies and banks to undertake conveyancing.
On that basis I agreed to withdraw my Bill.

The Attorney-General: The undertaking in writing to which the hon. Gentleman refers — and the hon. Gentleman has played a considerable part in the progress that we have made—was contained in a letter from the Solicitor-General to him which I do not think has been published. That letter, although committing the Government to legislation to enable solicitors employed by organisations such as building societies to undertake conveyancing, sounded several warning notes. For example, it said:
A consultation paper will be issued early next month. So far as conflicts of interest are concerned, our provisional view is that we can rely primarily on appropriate amendments to the Solicitors Practice Rules.
The letter made this important point, which was expressed in the clearest terms to the hon. Gentleman:
Our view is that, provided the potential conflicts of interest can be avoided, it is right to enable all employed solicitors to do so.
That is to convey. The consultations then took place—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose —

The Attorney-General: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's last intervention. When I have finished, he may intervene again.
The consultations have been taking place. They have reflected largely the anxieties expressed in the House, and, as I say, the scope of that Bill is still under consideration.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I agree that points were made about the process of consultation and about possible conflicts of interest. However, the impression given in the letter was that those could easily be got round and that they presented no real problems. The letter went on to make points about seeking views.
However, in answer to a parliamentary question, the Solicitor-General did not say "if' about banks and building societies doing conveyancing. He used the word "when." The commitment in the letter dated 12 January, on which the whole agreement was based—it was the foundation on which we built the agreement — was, "We are committed." It is impossible to be more definite than that.

The Attorney-General: "We are committed," said my hon. and learned Friend, but we shall consult, and it is

worth re-reading what was said in the debate to see exactly what views were expressed. If one says, "You have given a commitment, and you have said that you will consult, but you have said that you will not stick to the commitment whatever the consultation produces," then one is talking about empty consultation.
It might help if I were to repeat what I said on the subject. I said that the form of that legislation would take into account the need to protect consumers against prejudice resulting from any conflict of interest and would be drafted in the light of our recent consultation. That is the position. That fairly sets it out, and there is nothing that I can add to it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That is a different argument from that used by the Government, for example, on the measure to abolish the GLC. There they made a commitment which, in spite of any consultation, they regard as unmoveable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the view that I took on the previous occasion. He should now tell the House honestly, "We have changed our position," rather than pretend that the position then and the position now are the same, because they are not.

The Attorney-General: I shall say this just once more, and then I should like to continue my speech. We have not changed our position. We said in the letter to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), "This is our intention, but we shall consult." The powerful speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon would have alerted anyone to the fact that this is not an easy issue and that we must examine it carefully. That is the position now, and that is all I can say about it.
It is also the Government's intention to enable solicitors to act in corporate form rather than simply in partnership with other solicitors as is the case now. Clause 28 will enable licensed conveyancers to operate in this way, and it is right to open up this possibility to solicitors as well. An amendment will be brought forward in Committee.
Part III of the Bill contains provisions relating to legal aid. Clauses 36 to 40, which implement a recommendation of the Royal Commission on legal services, introduce changes in the way in which legal aid complaints relating to solicitors and banisters are handled.
At present legal aid complaints—which arise, by and large, from a practitioner's failure to comply with the legal aid legislation rather than from an assisted person's dissatisfaction with his advisers — are considered by tribunals established under the Legal Aid Act 1974. Those tribunals have been used hardly at all in the last 12 years. That is because, first, the Law Society and the Bar Council regard legal aid complaints as extremely serious matters relating to professional conduct and therefore to he treated as such, and, secondly, there is some concern that the constitutions and procedures of the relevant tribunals might offend against the rules of natural justice. The Bill therefore transfers the jurisdiction to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal and a senate disciplinary tribunal, at the same time empowering those tribunals to reduce or cancel legal aid remuneration or to exclude a practitioner from undertaking further legal aid work.
Such legal aid complaints will usually relate to matters, such as failure to respond to inquiries from the legal aid area office, which do not directly concern the client. The sanctions that the tribunals may impose will therefore be


intended more to safeguard the interests of the legal aid fund than to give some benefit to the assisted person. He may nevertheless benefit, since the reduction or cancellation of the practitioner's remuneration will reduce the liability of the fund and thus the client may recover some part of any contribution he has paid or be subject to a smaller statutory charge.
These changes will enable legal aid complaints to be considered in a more effective and fairer way and will ensure that the professional disciplinary tribunals will have available a wide range of sanctions.
Clauses 41 and 42 also amend the Legal Aid Act 1974. Clause 41 will enable the Lord Chancellor to align the capital limit of eligibility for assistance by way of representation with that for legal aid proper. That is, the capital limit involved will be £3,000. The difference between the limits is at present £765 and £3,000. Clause 42 overcomes a difficulty in making payments out of the legal aid fund for urgent work done before a legal aid order is granted. That aspect was crying out for reform, and I am sure that that measure is supported by every hon. Member.
Part IV introduces a number of changes relating to the procedures and powers of the High Court and county courts. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go through those on Second Reading, except to point out that clause 48 is a technical revision which corrects a defect in the provisions enacted in 1982 relating to the right of certain financial institutions, such as banks, to deduct a prescribed amount towards the adminstrative expenses they incur in giving effect to the recovery of a judgment debt garnishee order.
Clause 50 will enable the Lord Chancellor to contract out the keeping of the register of county court judgments. That is a task presently carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department, which can equally appropriately be carried out in the private sector and enable staff to be redeployed to other work in the Department. Clause 50 will therefore enable the Lord Chancellor to enter into an agreement as to the keeping of the register by a body corporate. The Lord Chancellor will still be able to maintain by regulations control over services and fees.
Clause 51 corrects the present anomalous state of affairs under which the High Court and the county courts do not have the same powers to grant lessees relief from forfeiture for non-payment of rent.
The final part of the Bill passes under the description of "Miscellaneous and General" — often known as the rag-bag provisions. I shall not attempt to identify a common purpose for its contents—I do not think that I could—which cover such diverse subjects as limitation periods in defamation actions, appeals to pension appeals tribunals and the constitution of juvenile courts. They have one common feature. They are all helpful, all make the administration of justice more effective and all are, I hope, uncontroversial.
That completes my description of what is in the Bill. I am sorry that it has taken a little time. I have already referred to two new clauses which are to be brought forward in Committee. Two others will be proposed at that time. The first will fulfil an undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor that a new clause would be brought forward which would make provision for the reimbursement of costs incurred by reason of the death or incapacity of a

judge. The Lord Chancellor will be empowered to reimburse to each party to the action wasted costs up to a fixed sum. The second will afford magistrates in Northern Ireland a measure of protection from legal action in cases where they have acted without jurisdiction. That will give them protection similar to that which magistrates in England and Wales have.
This Bill will make a number of useful and, I hope, welcome changes in the law. It will increase disciplinary powers over solicitors, for the first time enabling the Law Society to impose sanctions for bad work. That has always been a missing link. The Bill will introduce a welcome increase in competition in conveyancing, but it will still ensure that the interests of the consumer are protected. It will improve the operation of the machinery of justice in a number of varied ways. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Attorney-General for his exposition of the measures in the Bill. I thank him especially for giving us new information about the Law Society's attitude to the workings of part I. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the two principal proposals are the new measures designed to deal with complaints against solicitors and the proposals designed to increase competition for house conveyancing work.
In principle, the Labour party is in favour of new machinery to deal with complaints against solicitors and of increased competition in house conveyancing work. However, we are unable to give the Bill an unqualified welcome on either of its main proposals. Our most serious reservations are over part I, dealing with complaints against solicitors. Many right hon. and hon. Members know from personal involvement in constituents' cases of the general public's concern about the difficulty in getting to grips with complaints against solicitors. Many right hon. and hon. Members know just how intractable these issues can be. I have a constituency case which, I believe, is a clear-cut negligence case against a firm of Newcastle solicitors. I have been vigorously pressing that case for the past year and a half, yet it is no further forward.
There is a widespread belief among our fellow citizens that members of the legal profession protect themselves from the rest of us. The National Consumer Council commissioned research from MORI to discover attitudes towards the solicitors complaints system. The survey found that only 15 per cent. of those polled thought that solicitors, or a solicitors' body, should investigate compaints. Of the rest of those polled, 24 per cent. opted for an independent body. They were followed by 11 per cent. who favoured some form of Government body, and 10 per cent. who wanted an independent person who was not a solicitor. When asked about the composition of a possible new complaints body, only 3 per cent. of those asked thought that it should consist entirely of solicitors; 60 per cent. thought that it should be composed of solicitors and other people, and 34 per cent. thought that it should be composed of people who were not solicitors. Nearly two thirds thought that it should be a mixed body consisting 50:50 of solicitors and non-solicitors; 36 per cent. thought that there should be a majority of non-solicitors, while a loyal 3 per cent. preferred a majority of solicitors. That is not a sign of public confidence in the present system.
Any new system created to deal with complaints against solicitors should meet the legitimate anxieties of the public. Part I does not do so. It amends section 44 of the Solicitors Act 1974, and it extends the disciplinary sanctions which the Law Society can apply. The Law Society will potentially be able to investigate a wider range of complaints, but there is still no clear definition of the difference between negligence and misconduct. I understood the Attorney-General to say that that matter would be considered. That is a welcome assurance.
The Bill contains no provision for compensation, and as I understand it, that matter will not be considered by the Government. What is far more serious is that the Law Society is left with an intractable duality of functions. It is the solicitors' professional body representing their interests, advising its members and making representations on its behalf. All of that is proper. The Law Society functions like any other trade union, but it also regulates the profession and makes decisions in disciplinary cases involving its members. To make matters worse, the multiplicity of avenues for complaints against solicitors causes confusion. In practice, it wastes the time, money, patience and temper of those complaining against the profession.
Two points stand out clearly. There should be one procedure for dealing with complaints against the profession. It needs to be accessible and to have its own staff and independent investigative powers. It should be able to impose its decisions effectively so that injustices are rectified as far as they can be.
The second point that stands out is that the procedure for dealing with complaints against solicitors cannot be run by their own trade union. As the MORI poll demonstrates, that is widely perceived to be unfair. I can see that any institution dealing with complaints against a professional practitioner needs to have professional advice. I can even see the case for members of the profession serving on the decision-making body. However, there must be a substantial lay involvement from an informed cross-section of our society if the charge of vested interest is to be effectively dispelled. That is the most contentious part of the Bill.
The issues with which we are dealing are no longer merely those of a private consumer seeking resolution of a grievance against the supplier of a service. Since the inception of the legal aid scheme, a substantial portion of legal services is paid for by the taxpayer. Those who have charge of the distribution and expenditure of public funds should be publicly accountable for that charge. Legal aid gives a new dimension to the different interests with a stake in the procedure for investigating complaints against solicitors. The state's duty to protect its citizens is augmented by its duty to protect the fruits of the citizens' taxes.
How likely is it that part I will provide a lasting solution to the problems that it seeks to address? Part I leaves key issues unresolved. It has been superseded, to some extent, by the findings of the report commissioned by the Law Society from Coopers and Lybrand. I have no doubt that we shall be discussing this matter again before too long.
I have mixed feelings about part II. I look forward to exploring what is proposed in more detail in Committee. The Opposition welcome in principle the Government's intention to open conveyancing work to those qualified to undertake it and to end the solicitors' professional monopoly. We welcome those measures.
There is a fear that Parliament will be setting up a new mini-profession which will blunt the competitive edge of the proposals contained in the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I accept that there is a need for proper safeguards for the consumer and an overview of those who undertake conveyancing work. I also accept that the new conveyancers must be regulated by something more than their insurance companies.
I believe that the advertising of services will probably have as much impact on conveyancing fees as the proposals contained in the Bill.
The Attorney-General referred to a major issue which I feel remains outstanding. I am uncertain about the position of banking institutions and building societies under clause 28. I noted carefully what the Attorney-General said about the Government's intention to return to the House with further legislation. The opportunity to do in-house conveyancing must be attractive to those who are providing the mortgage. I can see the point about conflict of interest, and I wonder whether it is possible to make regulations to meet it.
On 16 December 1983 the Solicitor-General gave the House this assurance:
We therefore intend to introduce our own legislation where necessary to extend the right of conveyancing, not just of registered land, but of all land, to solicitors employed by, for example, building societies and banks, subject to safeguards.
Later, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), he said—I shall quote the whole passage so that there can be no question of leaving bits out:
We are satisfied that it is possible and proper to legislate in respect of solicitors employed by building societies. That will need legislation. We think that it is right that solicitors employed by banks should be able to convey. Our mind is not closed to the possibility of solicitors employed by other institutions being permitted to convey, but in some cases there could be an insuperable conflict of interests. We shall investigate the possibilities."—[Official Report, 16 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 1325–26·1
Do the Government stand by that statement in its entirety? There is no suggestion in the statement of any reservations about conveyancing by banks. All the reservations refer to other institutions which may be permitted to do conveyancing work. That seems to be under investigation still, and presumably consultations are taking place.

Mr. Weetch: Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association have made very strong submissions that there should be adequate safeguards if building societies and banks are to be responsible for conveyancing property?

Mr. Brown: Yes; I am well aware of the submissions of those organisations. I find them persuasive, but until one sees the proposals one is not able to judge whether the safeguards are sufficient. Because of the assurances that have previously been given to the House I thought that there would be proposals for us to see, but there are not. That is why I ask the Attorney-General whether the commitment given to the House still stands, or whether it has been diluted in some way. It is not clear to me where we stand on the issue. Perhaps in the summation the Solicitor-General will be able to clarify the position for me. I cannot believe that the Government are reneging on the assurances that the House has been given. To my


untutored mind it is not clear whether clause 28 already permits banks to do in-house work. The Attorney-General shakes his head, so I take the point.
I do not wish to go into matters that should be raised more properly in Committee, but I wish to comment briefly on some points. Clause 41 will allow the Government to increase the financially eligible level of capital for an applicant for assistance by way of representation under the legal aid scheme. This is a welcome reform which the Government were right to bring forward. At first sight I thought that the clause which enables the Lord Chancellor to transfer the registry of county court judgments to a company run by the users of that registry, was a concession to the privatisation enthusiasts on the Government Benches, but on a closer examination I see that the proposal has merit and may well result in a more efficient service.
Reducing the time limit for slander and libel actions from six years to three years also has merit. In my view these actions are only for the very rich or the very angry. I am disappointed that the Government did not feel able to undertake a more far-reaching consideration of the present state of the libel and slander laws. I am sure that other hon. Members will be sympathetic to the point of view that we may be missing an opportunity to deal with the issue of misrepresentation in the press and in broadcasting. An accessible independent tribunal which could adjudicate on such complaints would be a welcome reform. In particular, it would give the individual of ordinary financial means access to a remedy which is at present for all practical purposes denied to him.
We seem to be establishing a tradition in legal affairs debates that we comment on what is not in the Bill because it was removed in another place. I shall content myself with saying that the original clause 43, ending a citizen's rights to go to the Court of Appeal when a lower court says that he cannot challenge the decision of a Government body, was ill-considered by the Government. It was almost universally condemned, and I think that we are well rid of it. Although I appreciate the Government's concern to save money, it should not be done at the expense of the citizen.
Two other matters missing from the Bill—I suspect that it was never intended to include them— are the issue of law centre and advice service funding and, separately, other recommendations of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee contained in its 34th report. I accept that law and advice centres are funded from a variety of different sources, but surely the time has come for the Lord Chancellor to take an overview of what is being done and to try to co-ordinate the present endeavours.
With regard to the Legal Aid Advisory Committee recommendations, I think that it would be wrong of Parliament to shelve the results of the review of legal aid eligibility. The report contains some useful ideas which meet criticisms which have been made of the legal aid scheme and which would also enhance the provision of legal services.
The Bill is more to be commended for effort than achievement, and I look forward to making a constructive contribution to its progress through Committee.

Sir Ian Percival: I want to say a brief word on part II of the Bill and first to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and his colleagues on having implemented their commitment on licensed conveyancing so quickly, so fully and in such a satisfactory manner.
The preoccupation with banks and building societies has perhaps taken people's minds off what has been done in the Bill. It provides for the matters for which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was principally pressing; it provides for what the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has wanted for so long. Now they have got what they wanted. I hope that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will feel that the taking over of his Bill by the Government has proved a worthwhile exercise and produced a solution which he will find very satisfactory.
I congratulate not only the Government but those who have co-operated with them in producing such a speedy solution—in particular the Farrand committee and the Law Society. We are all very ready to criticise lawyers but we should also be ready to give them a pat on the back when they co-operate so fully and speedily as here to introduce competition in their own field. I hope that we shall not lose sight of the great progress made in that respect, as it was the principal objective of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues in the Government on being so cautious about the risks involved in going any further. Initially, as one remembers, there was a great outcry about the lawyers trying to look after their own interests. That always happens and there is nothing new about it. But when people got over that and had a close look at what was involved in giving powers to the banks and building societies, it was recognised that there really is a conflict of interest to be considered. Some credit must be given to the lawyers. All the lawyers I know who have been interested in the measure have recognised that conflict, and have then set about trying to find an answer to it, and if genuine safeguards to cover that conflict of interest can be found, so be it.
We hear a great deal about consumer interest. It would certainly not be in the interest of the consumer to open up new practices involving a conflict of interest acting to the detriment only of the consumer. There would necessarily be a conflict of interest between the bank or the building society in doing the conveyancing work, and the consumer whom they purport to be serving.
I cannot believe that either the hon. Member for Great Grimsby or the hon. Member for Ipswich want to do something which would be to the detriment of the consumer. Therefore, I hope that they will accept that there is here a serious point to be dealt with. I hope that they will also say that, while everybody should be looking for the answer, they must not and will not try to hustle the Government into doing something unless and until the answer has been found. If they can find it, let them find it. I promise them this. All the lawyers I know would be most interested to hear positive suggestions from those who want to get on faster on how the conflict of interest could be met. If and in so far as they are put forward, and from whatever quarter they come, they will receive the most interested and serious consideration.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall develop this point in my speech. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the idea of allowing solicitors employed by banks and building societies to do conveyancing was the Government's own idea, not mine. It was also the Government's own decision to extend that power to unregistered as well as registered land.

Sir Ian Percival: Be that as it may, all the more credit that they are now recognising that there is a danger of conflict of interest in all the areas referred to, and so have determined not to do something which could operate to the detriment of the consumer, and not to go ahead until the serious point of that conflict has been resolved.
I for one congratulate the Government upon the Bill. I hope that they will stand fast on this ground. It would be absurd to go ahead unless and until the answer to that conflict is found.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The Administration of Justice Bill has been described as a blancmange. In fact, it is a curate's omelette in many respects. Even though it has been cooked at a low regulo, and at this time of night, it is good to see the serried ranks of lawyers on the Conservative Benches. I am not sure what the collective noun is—perhaps it is a charge of lawyers, all offering their services free of charge at a time when they are free from their work at the courts. However, the Bill is a mixed bag. I shall start with part I, but the substance of what I have to say concerns part II.
Undoubtedly part I fulfils a long-felt want. There is a growing dissatisfaction with all professions, not just the law, with the lack of redress for abuse. Let me take the medical profession as an example. A doctor who puts his hand on a patient's knee or who makes a sexual advance to the patient can be dealt with for professional misconduct, but a doctor who, through incompetence, kills the patient cannot be dealt with in the same way. If bad professional work is done by people such as doctors and solicitors, the answer is to make a claim for damages or professional negligence. That means getting another solicitor to fight the case, going through the uncertainties of the law. That is an inadequate means of redress. The Bill does something to rectify that. We have something that we should have in all the professions. I am glad to see it coming in the legal profession.
However, the Bill deals with the matter in a limited way. It does not cover arguments over costs. That was what precipitated action in the first place. The Glanville Davies affair, with the gross overcharging that went on then, precipitated much of the concern, yet that problem is not dealt with in this proposed legislation. It was a major scandal. The Law Society failed drastically to live up to its responsibilities, and it was dealt with only by High Court action, with enormous expense and delay. The matter is not covered by the legislation, which is supposed to be bringing the Law Society up to date. It does not provide for lay representation on important Law Society committees, which was a recommendation of the Benson commission. It recommended that laymen should be on the assessment committees reviewing costs, and they are not. Thirdly, it is permissive, because it is up to the Law Society to decide when and how to use it.
Fourthly, it does not solve the basic problem, because the Law Society is two different things—a trade union

to advance the interests and purposes of lawyers and a servant of the public interest. When those interests conflict, the society cannot possibly carry out both functions. That is the whole point of asking for an independent means of review for disputes of this kind. A trade union cannot be a regulator and, if it poses as one, it cannot be trusted. That is why there have been so many complaints.
People do not see the Law Society as behaving objectively in the interests of the public. The MORI survey commissioned by the National Consumer Council shows this dramatically. The Law Society is not seen to be fair and it is not trusted. Yet that is the body to which these powers are to be given. Coopers and Lybrand management consultants are carrying out a far-ranging review of this type of problem. If they conclude that the Law Society cannot be both plaintiff and judge in its own case and cannot act as both trade union and protector of the public interest and that the only solution is an independent complaints procedure, all the effort that has gone into this legislation will be wasted. Moreover, what has been done today will stand in the way of the truly radical improvement that we believe is necessary.
There is an interesting contrast between the two parts of the Bill. Part II establishes a council for conveyancers, to be responsible for standards and discipline. Why cannot the legal profession have a body which functions in the same way and with the same semi-independent approach? It is not difficult to achieve. The Legal Action Group has put up a proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) introduced the Solicitors (Independent Complaints Procedure) Bill, which I am proud and honoured to have sponsored. The National Consumer Council has produced an excellent report entitled "In Dispute with a Solicitor". Others have suggested an ombudsman, which the insurance industry already has and the banking industry is trying to establish — not to mention the Daily Mirror, although that ombudsman will probably be in Liechtenstein.
There must be an independent body of some kind to deal with complaints from outside and to mediate between the interested party and the public. As the National Consumer Council has suggested, a legal council is needed through which all complaints can be channelled — a single, integrated body composed of laymen and solicitors and operating independently with a legal ombudsman. Until that is achieved, the flood of complaints will continue. When I introduced the House Buyers Bill was astonished and horrified at the deluge of complaints about solicitors all over the country, many involving serious malpractices. One Member of Parliament cannot deal with all those complaints, and it is extremely difficult to get anyone else to deal with them. This Bill takes us only part of the way. We need a proper independent complaints procedure to deal with the problem and to pro vide the public with the satisfaction of knowing that their complaints will be independently assessed.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: How does the hon. Gentleman know how far we need to go before he has seen whether this scheme works?

Mr. Mitchell: I have already pointed out that the danger of an inadequate, halfway-house scheme of this kind is that it will block the further progress that is really needed. The general principle is clear. There must be an


independent body. The Law Society cannot be both trade union and public protector, because that is an impossible role and it is bound to fail. Therefore, we must argue for what is really required rather than what the Bill proposes. That is certainly the view of Labour Members, and that is why the response to part I of the Bill from all the interested organisations whose views I respect, including the Consumers Association, the National Consumer Council, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, has been to praise with faint damns. The Bill is all right, but it is just not good enough. That has been the general reaction to part I— to welcome the provisions but to stress their inadequacy. That is what we must do with part I.
It is a rare pleasure in opposition to have played a part in the paternity of legislation, and part II springs directly from the House Buyers Bill. I am pleased to acknowledge that fact. Originally the Government tried to praise my measure with faint doubts, perhaps even to kill it. They certainly tried to buy off support for it. But they have now come round to accepting the principle implicit in that measure — the ending of the monopoly and the enfranchisment of conveyancers.
There was no drive from the Lord Chancellor's department to end the conveyancing monopoly. It simply hid behind the Benson recommendations until my Bill was introduced and until, on 16 December 1983, it was carried. The House then expressed itself in favour of ending the monopoly which solicitors enjoyed in relation to house conveyancing. That led to two months of negotiations and discussions, at the end of which I withdrew my Bill in return for what I regarded—and still do so—as a series of absolute commitments, of which this measure is one but only one.
That commitment was to set up the Farrand committee to consider the tests of competence needed for non-solicitor conveyancers. All interested parties sat on that committee, and it did an excellent, rapid and important job. To report in September 1984 was a real achievement, and part II implements its recommendations.
However, not all the detailed qualifications are given. The proposal is to set up a council which will set out the qualifications, establish the standard of competence and all the rest. That is the sensible way of doing things, and it will be done with regard to Farrand's proposals.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) will refer to some of the problems. We have received representations from conveyancers who are already functioning about what will happen to them under the transitional arrangements. It could be argued that the framework is over-elaborate. Indeed, the Law Society and a number of solicitors are now rushing forward to praise what they attacked and condemned less than two years ago. I therefore get a mite suspicious that the framework might be slightly over-elaborate. It is certainly elaborate compared with the proposals in my Bill, which were basically designed to safeguard the money of customers.
There is a further problem about solicitors which can only be resolved afterwards. What will happen if people wish to practise as both solicitors and conveyancers? On 13 February a correspondent in the Law Society Gazette spoke of conveyancers as a sub-professional class, and suggested that fully fledged lawyers who wanted to practice as conveyancers should be barred. The

consultation paper on the changes in the rules of conduct leaves this option open. Clearly, the Law Society has not yet decided on this matter, but solicitors should be able to register in both capacities, certainly in the early stages. That point should be clarified.
On what terms will conveyancers serve on building society panels? If they do not do so, that will impose an extra cost of about £70 to have the work done again by a solicitor. I see no reason why we should not legislate to provide that conveyancers should serve on building society panels on the same basis and with the same right of entry as solicitors. Personally, I should like to abolish such panels, but as they exist it would be wrong to give solicitors a monopoly and it would be right to put conveyancers on exactly the same footing.
There are problems about advertising. The conveyancing council should be able to compete with the type of advertising that the Law Society is now undertaking on a substantial scale. How will that be funded? Yet on the essentials my view is simple and straightforward. The House has expressed itself clearly as being in favour of the principle of breaking the monopoly and allowing conveyancers to operate, but many hon. Members also made it clear on 16 December that they were in favour of imposing some framework of qualifications as a safeguard for the consumer. It was right that we should delegate the job of deciding what those qualifications should be to a committee representing all the interested parties. In my view, we should accept that committee's decisions. It conducted a vigorous and stringent inquiry.
I cannot agree with many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. I see these measures as the logical culmination of our efforts to break the monopoly. It was a case of swings and roundabouts. The legislation represents a balance. Both sides have made concessions. The Law Society wanted conveyancers barred from commercial conveyancing, but the Bill makes no such provision. The Law Society wanted a line to be drawn between conveyancers and any association with estate agents. No such provision appears. What is provided for is a council that will rule in the light of circumstances. That is sensible. There are consumer representatives on the council. Almost half the representatives are not licensed conveyancers. The council will have to act liberally and sensibly because the future of the profession is in its hands, and it will be up to the council to make a success of it. That responsibility will guarantee that the council rules sensibly and that there will be a liberal interpretation of the framework.
Without a healthy, vigorous and profitable profession, everything will have been in vain. With the guidance of the Fan-and report, and the representation that is provided for, the council will have the opportunity to regulate sensibly and to modify the regulations in the light of the circumstances of the time and the needs of the profession as it develops. The council will have to make a success of the profession.
There is the vexed question of existing conveyancers. I can see why there is a sense of frustration, but the problem is open to solution in the same way. We must provide for responsibility and public protection. The National Consumer Council believes that the council should be required to exempt those with sufficient practical experience. It will be possible, on a flexible basis, to make sensible arrangements and to consider


deserving cases — people with competence, skill and experience--with a benign eye, and to do them justice. On that basis, I welcome the measure.
However, there is a wider question. We do not establish complete competition just by adding conveyancers to solicitors. We do not break the monopoly by widening it. There is still a monopoly — a monopoly of authorised persons rather than solicitors. There will not be the full and free competition envisaged in the Bill, which is essential if the. lot of the house buyer is to be improved.
There is no provision for the establishment of a comprehensive service for the house buyer. It should be possible for one institution — whether solicitors with property centres, as in Scotland, estate agents providing a conveyancing service, or building societies — to provide a comprehensive service for a generation of house buyers many of whom do not share the long middle-class tradition of buying and selling houses with the aid of the family solicitor.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is not the difficulty that, if we are to protect the consumer, those who do the conveyancing must be qualified in some way and, if there is some form of qualification, a cartel or closed shop is automatically introduced?

Mr. Mitchell: The legislation provides for qualifications. Solicitors employed by banks and building societies to do conveyancing would have qualifications. I am talking about institutional competition and the widened monopoly being broken because organisations employ whom they want. Banks and building societies will employ solicitors to offer a comprehensive service. I do not want the professional monopoly that has prevented all change.
My Bill provided for institutional competition by allowing banks and building societies to do conveyancing on registered land. The Lord Chancellor—this is my interpretation — in an attempt to divert support away from my comprehensive measure, proposed that solicitors could be employed by banks and building societies to do conveyancing on all land. It was a gambler's throw. It failed, but it left us with his proposal.
After Second Reading, and during the negotiations about how to achieve my Bill's objectives, I felt that it was vital to sustain the Chancellor's commitment to widen competition. It remained the central objective, as it had been a central part of the Bill, to ensure that banks and building societies would be able to do conveyancing. I am satisfied that we got a commitment in absolute and inescapable terms. In view of our earlier discussion, I should like to put on record the first commitment given in the Solicitor-General's letter to me of 12 January, the terms of which were inescapable. He wrote:
We are committed to legislation to enable solicitors employed by organisations such as building societies and banks to undertake conveyancing.

Sir Ian Percival: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we owe it to the consumer who, as he rightly says, will usually be wholly mystified, to ensure that his conveyancing is not carried out by someone who has an interest in conflict with his? How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we provide that protection to the consumer if conveyancing is done by the bank or building society which would, as the lender, have an interest in the conflict with the consumer? How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we provide that safeguard for the consumer?

Mr. Mitchell: I must emphasise that the proposal was the Government's. The Lord Chancellor is highly skilled in legal matters and has legal officers. They will have thought about that problem before the proposal was made. Such ideas are not clutched out of the air by those in government. The had thought about it. The letter continued to give the impression that it was a fairly straightforward matter to resolve. It stated:
So far as conflicts of interest are concerned, our provisional view is that we can rely primarily on appropriate amendments to the Solicitors Practice Rules.
I agree with that. The letter continues:
This might be supplemented, in the case of building societies, by a Code of Practice issued by the Building Societies Association and by a statutory requirement for societies to inform clients of the desirability of seeking independent advice where, for instance, the society wishes to impose a special condition on the loan. The Code of Practice, which might be policed by the Director General of Fair Trading or perhaps by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, could also prohibit societies from discriminating against borrowers who chose not to use the Society's conveyancing services.
It is a straightforward matter, and the way around it is not difficult. The Government are committed to legislation to enable solicitors to act in this way. The letter of 12 January is the foundation on which we erected the agreement, and is central to it. Without it, I would not have withdrawn my Bill. The written answer said:
We will shortly issue a consultation paper on how best to ensure that conflicts of interest and anti-competitive practices do not arise when solicitors employed by banks, building societies and other organisations are permitted to undertake conveyanc-ing."—[Official Report, 17 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 347.]
There is no more absolute commitment than that. It is clear, absolute, straightforward and unequivocal.

Mr. Weetch: Does my hon. Friend realise that, when someone buys a house and employs a solicitor to undertake the conveyancing, that person not only pays his solicitor for the conveyancing but the person, usually the same person, who acts on behalf of the building society to check the deeds and the terms of the loan? In other words, one and the same person acts both for the purchaser and the mortgagee in the form of the building society. There are potential conflicts of interest in that. However, not until this convenient time have they ever been put forward in public.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has contributed a major point, which is on my next page of notes. He is absolutely right. Conflicts of interest arise all the time, but the profession has accepted them as part of the norm and done nothing about them. Conflicts of interest must arise in the property centres being set up by solicitors. They are being set up in different parts of the country. and have existed for a long time in Scotland.

Mr. Greg Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that point is bogus because both the building society and the client have an interest in getting a good title and, therefore, there is no conflict of interest?

Mr. Mitchell: There is a conflict of interest in that the solicitor is wearing two hats and fulfilling two different roles. That is clear. The fact that that argument has not been raised as a point to prevent solicitors from getting two sets of fees, makes it a little difficult to accept that argument when it is raised to prevent banks and building societies from conveyancing. I do not accept that conflict of interest argument.
I am developing the commitment made to me, on the basis of which I withdrew my Bill. The Lord Chancellor said:
the Government — and I think with the assent of the Opposition—entered into certain commitments as a result of that legislation. We were in honour bound, having entered into those commitments, to do what we had promised to do."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 1985; Vol. 458, c. 825–6.]
Part of the Government's promise was to introduce legislation to allow banks and building societies to undertake conveyancing. There is no escaping that. They cannot fudge it. They are honour bound to fulfil that promise.
Clearly the Law Society will carry on a rearguard action, such as is being staged now, and will make a major point of conflicts of interest. In reality, however, it is a minor matter which affects a minority of cases. It is clear that the conflict of interest point was not raised when the position benefited its members—when they received two fees for doing one job. It can be dealt with straightforwardly by the practice rules, by the Office of Fair Trading and by an insistence that where a conflict of interest arises, the solicitor acting for a building society must tell the customer to consult his own solicitor. It is as easy as that to avoid conflicts of interest.
The minor point of difficulty, which I concede exists, does not obviate the principle, and was accepted, so as not to obviate the principle, by the Government when they persuaded me to withdraw my Bill. I cannot understand why it has become such a major point now.
I did not understand the Attorney-General to say that the Government will not allow banks and building societies to act. He reserved his position in view of the argument that we all know is continuing. But in view of the commitments made, if the legislation is not introduced, it would be dishonest, deceitful, mendacious and untrue. The Government will have conned me into withdrawing my Bill on the basis of promises that will not be fulfilled.
I know nothing of the internal workings of the Government, but some press reports have suggested that the Lord Chancellor, having introduced this proposal to persuade Conservative Members not to support my legislation, is trying to renege on his own commitments. I do not say that: the press does. The reports also say that he is trying to hedge round the legislation so that the principle is implemented in such a way as to make it unattractive to banks and building societies. One newspaper this morning suggested that one building society might do the conveyancing for another building society's customers. How ludicrous that would be. It is so comical that it cannot be seen as implementing the principle to which the Government are committed.
The press reports say that the arguments are continuing, but I believe that the Lord Chancellor is a man of honour. Indeed, Gilbert's Lord Chancellor in Iolanthe said:
The Law is the true embodiment
Of everything that's excellent.
It has no kind of fault or flaw,
And I, my Lords, embody the Law.
Therefore, it is a monstrous slur on someone who embodies all those qualifications to imply that he is indulging in sordid politicking and trying to rat on specific promises made on his behalf to me, on the basis of which I took action which is now irreversible. I do not understand

how the press can assert that a man in such a position would behave in that way. It is a monstrous slur on the integrity of the Lord Chancellor. If the assertions are true —I am sure they are not—they would be a slur, too, on the Solicitor-General, who made those promises to me and who might think that, if they are not fulfilled, it is a resigning matter. His word has been betrayed.

Mr. Weetch: I took it.

Mr. Mitchell: We all took his word. I am glad that the Attorney-General has merely reserved his position, because the legislation must come. It must confer the right to banks and building societies to operate in a way that is attractive to them, and it must widen the range of choice of the consumer. I look forward to that promise being fulfilled unalloyed, unadulterated, unweakened and in its entirety.
For too long house purchase has been a log jam, and the purchaser has been overcharged for conveyancing. That log jam was broken by the House Buyers Bill. Drastic changes resulted from the Bill, and I am delighted with what is happening in the house-buying market. There are new ideas and initiatives and a surge of action and change. It is estimated that conveyancing costs have decreased substantially by 20 to 30 per cent. That is a direct gain from the Bill. We have seen the attempt to try new initiatives, solicitors advertising, progress towards comprehensive services, solicitors taking up the idea of property centres in Wrexham, Crawley, Berwick and Lincoln on the pattern of the Scottish solicitors, computerisation brought into a sector where it is vital and can make a major contribution, conveyancing plans and packages for solicitors to make the whole operation more simple and straightforward, estate agents looking forward to employing conveyancers, and a whole range of choices and changes. It is a shake-up that directly results from the threat of competition. That threat has to be sustained. We are implementing part of it today in the Bill. The next step is to extend it to banks and building societies.
When this comes, it will be a real change, and the House will have made a contribution. We will have done something in this measure, and through the House Buyers Bill, to help our people in the most genuine, straightforward and necessary way. It has done something more relevant to the lives of people and to improving their lot than most of the other things that we discuss in the House. Therefore, I welcome that part of the Bill and the flood of initiatives that will follow.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I declare an interest as a partner in a firm of solicitors. Before Labour Members jeer, I remind them that I am not part of the Law Society's rearguard action, as I voted for the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on Second Reading. I also remind him that a substantial number of Conservative Members voted for it.
I welcome the proposals to abolish the solicitors' conveyancing monopoly. It has been described several times today as a monopoly, but I feel that it is more of a cartel. Some 27,000 solicitors and several thousand firms in competition with each other hardly smacks of monopoly. There can be only one test of whether the cartel should be removed, and that is whether it is in the public interest. It has been clearly demonstrated that the Bill's


changes will result in cheaper conveyancing. I understand that solicitors' charges have dropped by about 30 per cent. since 1983, and that step is clearly in the public interest.
The proposal is that we have a council for licensed conveyancers and I agree with that. It could not be anything else. The standards of the council will be set by the council. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has described, that is required—under clause 8. The clause goes no further, but I suggest that an exam of a similar standard to the solicitors' conveyancing exam should be a fair test if we are to have fair competition.
While I voted for the abolition of the cartel, I voted for the Bill only on a matter of principle. If the Bill had stayed in the same form as that passed on Second Reading, which I think everyone will agree was pretty ropey, I should have voted against it on Third Reading. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has made much of the negotiations that he had with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in the months after he had obtained a Second Reading of his Bill. It is worth pointing out that the hon. Member got his closure motion by only one vote, so he hardly negotiated from a position of overwhelming authority.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: What was the majority for Second Reading?

Mr. Ottaway: I do not know, but I think that it was about 20 or 30.
The hon. Member hardly negotiated from a position of overwhelming authority, particularly when several hon. Members backed him that day simply on a matter of principle and not for the full force of his Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is a curious suggestion, if the hon. Gentleman is making it, that commitments of honour can be diluted by an inverse ratio to the size of the majority.

Mr. Ottaway: I am not suggesting that. If the test of whether banks and building societies should have this right had been put to the vote, the hon. Gentleman might have had a different result.
Some of the problems that have been described if banks and building societies are allowed to do conveyancing are problems of conflicts. That has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) who gave an example of a solicitor today acting for a borrower and a building society at the same time. However, what is being proposed here is slightly different. The lender's lawyer has never acted for both lender and borrower, because the lender is in a position of strength.
In response to the Government's suggestion that we allow banks and building societies to carry out conveyancing, the Lord Chancellor's Department issued a consultation paper that expressed concern
that the dominant position of certain lenders in the housing market might enable them to pursue anti-competitive practices.
It relied upon the Competition Act 1980 to protect against some of the unfair practises.
What the paper did not do was consider the suitability of banks and building societies to carry out conveyancing. However, the Benson report did that, and said:
We consider, therefore, that even if it were possible to devise a suitable system for licensing and supervising conveyancing by building societies and banks that was not cumbersome and expensive such a development would not be in the public interest.

After all, we are talking about the public interest. The Benson report was right. I am not satisfied that the Fair Trading Acts could cater for that position. After all, that would be to ignore human nature. A man may go into a building society and ask for a loan, and on the way out be told, "By the way, we offer a conveyancing service." The chap is rather worried whether he will be given a mortgage, and it would require a very strong-willed person to resist the offer of conveyancing.
The real problem is that the banks and the building societies_ would be in a dominant position. With their tremendous financial reserves — £3 billion for the building societies — they will set up high-technology conveyancing shops. While in the short term that would be good for the consumer, it would decimate the solicitors' profession.
The local branch of the Law Society in Nottingham carried out a survey of the impact of banks and building societies carrying out conveyancing. A number of firms of solicitors have branch offices dotted around Nottingham. Many of them offer services in deprived and under-privileged areas. In reply to my asking one firm what would happen if it lost 50 per cent. of its conveyancing work, it said:
competition from Banks and Building Societies could seriously affect the service we provide to the public in the area concerned. I give as an example details of percentages at our Bulwell Office; for the nine months to September, 1984,50 per cent. of our work is conveyancing which produces 72 per cent. of our costs; legal aid work accounts for 24 per cent. but the costs from that only amount to 12 per cent.
This legally aided litigation work as you would imagine consists of a good deal of matrimonial and criminal work with other civil work included, e.g. accident claims. If the organisations mentioned above were to reduce the level of our conveyancing work then clearly we would not be in a position to provide the service we do now.
That is the most important point in the whole issue about banks and building societies.

Mr. Weetch: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the cross-subsidy that exists in a solicitor's office. Does he believe it fair that a young couple struggling to buy a house and pay the conveyancing costs should, through a charge like that, subsidise someone who is undergoing a divorce?

Mr. Ottaway: I am not suggesting that. We have all agreed that conveyancing charges have dropped. That solicitor was saying that if he lost his work, his business would have to shut down. This is a different matter altogether—he will not be offering any service at all. As the firms of solicitors shut, conveyancing practices will become concentrated in the building societies, and the net result will be a reduction in the level of competition.
The profession is not opposed to the Bill. Those who read the letters columns in the Law Society Gazette in 1984 appreciated that many solicitors did not feel hidebound by the stance of the Law Society but were prepared to go out and get business. Many of them were referring to new technology, software programmes and advertising. Indeed, a new lease of life was given to the solicitors' profession, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and the Government are to be congratulated on that.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Administration of Justice Bill Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Ottaway: The Attorney-General described the miscellaneous provisions at the end of the Bill as covering


a rag-bag of issues, as it were, in that they were all good in principle. Clause 53 is designed to reform arbitration law. Many people involved in arbitration in the City believe that the clause is right in principle but wrong in application. Other provisions in arbitration law provide for a default appointment of an arbitrator, whereas the clause provides for appointment by the court.
As Britain is a worldwide arbitration centre, many arbitrations that take place here concern parties overseas. It will be particularly difficult if one must apply to the court for a default appointment of an arbitrator to serve documents overseas. That will slow up the process and provide extra work for the courts.
I may be told that that issue would be better discussed on Report. I mention it now only because, in a speech yesterday, the Master of the Rolls said that perhaps more emphasis would have to be placed on arbitration to deal with the volume of work that is being experienced in the civil courts. Clause 53 will give the courts more work and will hamper the arbitration process, so it does not seem appropriate in the circumstances.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Bill, the provisions of which I broadly welcome on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is a classic example of the deficiencies of our mode of seeking to introduce law reforms — what one might describe as lawyers' law reforms—in that it is limited in extent and deals with subjects some of which are by no means final in their shape and which, by virtue of their incompleteness, will require our attention before long. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) made much the same point when speaking about part I.
The distinguished legal correspondent of the Financial Times today commented on that in connection with the reform of commercial law and in his article almost despaired of the prospects of this country ever having modern commercial law. With respect to the provision of effective amendments to the law governing legal services, the same sort of criticism could be made when one recalls that some of the recommendations of the Evershed committee in 1953, which have commanded widespread support, both among the legal profession and those who represent consumers, still have not been implemented.
The time has come to ask whether we are approaching legislation in these areas in the most effective way. Many of these issues might best be dealt with by a new mode of legislation involving extensive pre-legislative committee hearings, so that a broad measure of consensus could be arrived at, thus avoiding measures of this kind clogging up the legislative machinery of the House. I say this by way of preamble because I am disappointed that the Bill, although long, does not deal with many important matters.
Part I enhances the capacity of the Law Society to deal with complaints against solicitors. This part of the Bill is broadly along the right lines. It is disappointing that the Law Society has not yet received the Coopers and Lybrand report which it initiated. When it does, it may be necessary to look again at the legal framework in which solicitors operate.
Like other hon. Members, I have been struck by the degree of public disquiet at the machinery for making

complaints against solicitors. I believe that radical changes are needed. Unless the profession makes the changes itself, the case for an external independent examination of complaints will be strengthened—an examination of the type advocated by the National Consumer Council and a number of other bodies. I have some reservations about that whole hog approach. It would have unfortunate consequences on the organisation of the profession. The Law Society could well become simply a professional trade union, and that would not be in the public interest. Undoubtedly, a larger lay element is desirable, and the Law Society should consider that proposal.
Although I accept the broad framework which has been set out by the Law Society and the Bill, there are some questions about how it will operate in practice. Do the remedies provided fit in with other remedies at law—notably with a damages action for negligence or a solicitor and own client taxation? Let us suppose the Law Society considers that the complaint discloses negligence as well as substandard performance by a solicitor. The wording of the Bill suggests that the client would be advised to take legal action. The legal aid committee might well take a different view and feel that the case did not merit full legal aid.
The Bill's provisions envisage solicitor and own client taxation following a reduction of fees by the Law Society. What is provided is that the bill to be taxed will be the bill as reduced, not as originally presented. If, as a result of taxation, the bill is altered, is the Law Society to alter its determination? That procedure is unlikely to inspire a great deal of confidence. The Bill provides a valuable extension of remedies, but it does not go far enough. There is still no power to award compensation to an aggrieved client.
The Benson committee recommended—perhaps this will be used in terrorem — that a solicitor should undergo some form of compulsory retraining. The Bill does not say anything about the procedures to be exercised by the Law Society. There is a danger that the procedure could be so cumbersome that it would deter potential complainants. The Law Society must address itself to that matter. On the other hand, there is a danger that solicitors will not be able to rely on the procedure. It will be difficult for them to rely upon the independent judgment of the professional purposes committee if its members and staff have already been concerned with the investigation process.
Part II is more complete, and I can give it a more unqualified welcome, notwithstanding the lively and important debate that there has been about the position of banks and building societies. The ending of the property conveyancing cartel, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) put it, is broadly welcomed by both sides of the House.
The movement that has been under way since the House Buyers Bill was introduced in 1983 has had a beneficial effect on conveyancing charges. Whether conveyancing is made cheaper and more efficient will depend not just on the establishment of a new profession but on whether important recommendations contained in the Farrand committee's second report are adopted. For example, it proposed that vendors should be required to supply purchasers with replies to local searches and standard


preliminary inquiries with the draft contract. I acknowldege that many of the recommendations are detailed. It would be sensible to give effect to them, but they will require major legislation.
That is a further illustration of the point that I made earlier about the desirability of considering alternative means of giving effect to what the House is likely to regard as desirable after careful consideration. It is a pity when the Lord Chancellor has so little time available that the Bill cannot take further the reform of the provision of legal services.
There are one or two matters which it would be desirable and in the interests of the consumers of legal services to include in the Bill. I hope that the Attorney-General will reconsider the case made most powerfully in another place by Lord Foot for granting legal aid in defamation cases. I do not propose to rehearse the cogent arguments that were put forward at some length. It is possible that we are in breach of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights—there is a case pending at the moment which may determine the point —by denying access to courts by refusing legal aid in such cases.
I should like to see public funds provided to pay the costs of determining points of law of exceptional importance. That is one of the Evershed committee's proposals which has long commanded the support of consumers of legal services and lawyers.
The Benson commission proposed that where the death or incapacity of a judge interrupted a trial or an appeal, the costs should be reimbursed. That is a highly desirable proposal, which should be considered. It has already been around for long enough without any action having been taken on it.
It will be easy for the Minister when he replies to the debate to say that there are many desirable things which the Government would like to see happen but that they cannot all be encompassed in one Bill. I accept that that is a procedural block, but I hope that the Government and those responsible for the machinery of law reform will apply their minds to how to bring about such changes without having to wait, in some cases, for decades.

Mr. Derek Spencer: The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have seen their legislative offspring legitimated by subsequent adoption by the Government. Notwithstanding its new-won respectability, they seem to have reservations about its status. I hope that they will eventually become reconciled to its position and will not, like disappointed fathers, as they seemed to suggest at one stage, either disinherit it or show their disenchantment any further.
I wish to speak not about that aspect but about part I. I am one of those people who have reported a solicitor to the Law Society. The last time I sat as a recorder at the Old Bailey a case was not ready for trial due to the incompetence of a solicitor. He had been similarly incompetent a month earlier in the same case. On that occasion another judge had granted an adjournment and had ordered him to pay the cost thrown away. After I heard what he had to say in chambers, I once again ordered him to pay the costs thrown away and reported him to the Law Society. I await the outcome of that complaint.
I shall say nothing about the individual case, but it highlights a number of problems that can occur. First of all, defending counsel is unlikely to feel that he is in a position to report a solicitor to the Law Society. Prosecuting counsel and the prosecuting solicitor would hardly feel it appropriate to do so. The defendants were only too pleased to see yet again that their case had been adjourned. If a judge is not to report a solicitor, who can? If the matter is not to be dealt with effectively by the Law Society, who can possibly consult the public interest? If at the end of the day the new procedure does not give satisfaction, I might be a more receptive audience to the private Solicitors (Independent Complaints Procedure) Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr Dubs).
There should be no need for dissatisfaction, provided the new provisions in part I are implemented imaginatively. The Master of the Rolls has power under schedule 1 to appoint to the new tribunal people who are not solicitors. In view of the public misgivings created by the Glanville Davies case, I hope he will not shrink from doing that. If we find that the undoubted improvements embodied in part I of the Bill do not allay public misgiving, we will have to come back to the matter, but I think the time is not yet ripe for that.
There has already been an effect on the level of conveyancing fees. As so often in respect of cutting conveyancing fees, Leicester leads the way. We have heard of fees elsewhere being cut by 30 per cent. My inquiries reveal that in Leicester conveyancing fees have been cut by as much as 50 per cent. That is by no means uncommon. I am sure that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby would like to be able to claim that his Bill was responsible for that. If I could give him credit for achieving that objective, I would assuredly give it. but my researches among solicitors reveal that their view is that it is a change in the rules about advertising that has caused a fall in conveyancing fees. When one of their regular customers comes in wanting to have them act for him in house conveyancing, he says, "You have been my family solicitor for years but I see from reading the Mercury last week that Mr. Jones round the corner can do it for £145. I don't expect you will be charging much more, will you?" That sort of argument is very difficult to reject, and I understand that it has been one of the principal reasons for a fall in conveyancing fees, which the public find so acceptable.
I can say to anyone who is thinking of evaluating the joys of Leicester that not only do we have a large reservoir of owner-occupied housing available; we also have some of the cheapest conveyancing fees in the country.

Mr. Ken Weetch: I oppose the Bill, and in doing so I want to concentrate on part II, which deals with the reform of conveyancing. But before I do that should like to respond to the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) and also to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). They both said, "Since you have lost the issue about banks and building societies, please don't go away and sulk about it." Let me assure them that I intend to do no such thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I will be back to argue the case. This House is a democratic forum. Although things have gone against us


on this occasion, that is not the end of the matter, because in the next Session of Parliament there will be a building societies Bill, and the argument will come up afresh.
When the right hon. and learned Member for Southport says to my hon. Friend and myself, "What you both need to do is to come back to this House with your arguments sharpened to present to us", that is absolutely right. We shall be back to argue that case at a later date, because this is the proper place to do it. I for one accept the challenge: I shall be back.

Sir Ian Percival: I take it that the second half of what the hon. Gentleman said is correcting the first half. I certainly did not say, "Don't go away and sulk." I meant to, and did, throw out a challenge: "Come back with the answer about this conflict of interest and it will be very seriously considered."

Mr. Weetch: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is as courteous as ever, and I accept that.
I wish to concentrate on part II of the Bill. As the House knows, I have had a specialist interest in conveyancing matters in the 12 years that I have been in this House. I have fought the old monopoly very hard because I quickly came to the conclusion, when I thought about it years ago, that what was needed in this area of legal services was a good dose of free competition, and that the sooner we had it the better. I believed that that would find a responsive echo on the other side of the House, but not in all places, for there is a dichotomy of philosophy. There are many hon. Members who believe in free enterprise and many others who believe in the old restrictive practices that the legal profession had yesterday, and still has today. That is an interesting situation in itself.
Before I come to part II, I want to say that I am not at all satisfied with part I, and particularly clause 1, which centres on the discipline of solicitors. Broadly speaking, I believe that clause 1 has missed a very good opportunity to bring about some valuable and far-reaching reform. That clause has missed the boat.
We should now be looking for an approach that separates professional disciplining of solicitors from the framework of the Law Society. It is no longer a satisfactory state of affairs that the solicitors' own professional body, which can be expected to take a partial approach in these matters, should be the body responsible for adjudicating what are adequate professional services and whether certain actions of professional conduct should be disciplined in the public interest. I shall have a great deal more to say about that in Committee. I do not want to develop the argument at this stage. Let me just say that this part of the Bill is totally inadequate as it stands.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South talked about respectability. The efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby have achieved respectability. As we are on the theme of respectability, I want to do the respectable thing and choose for the theme of my speech on part II, part of the editorial of The Times of Friday 3 May. One cannot be more respectable than to quote The Times leader in one's favour. It states:
with the exception of some aspects of trade union behaviour being subjected to new legal inhibitions, the professions and all those other vested interests carry on largely intact.
I wish to oppose part II. Paradoxically enough, in opposing it, I agree with the main aims of the Government,

underlying the whole of part II. Broadly speaking, the Government propose to bring more competition to bear on the current conveyancing system, so that house transfer is more cost effective, cheaper and expeditious. In detail, that is to be done by widening the categories of persons who can conveyance property. Having widened the source of supply, prices will eventually come down. That will occur in tandem with encouraging the use of computer technology and structural reform. Those matters are outside the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, they are widely understood.
Let me concede at the start that in trying to bring that about, the Government have had a difficult task. Such legislation inevitably has to strike a balance between protection and competition, between the old world of legal professionalism and the new opportunities of beneficial commercialism. Unfortunately, the Government have struck the balance in the wrong place. The Bill has too much of the old world and not enough of the new, so much so that it offers very little reform at all.
Let me analyse why that is so. I was not trained as a lawyer; I was trained as an economist, and I look at the problems like that. I look at bringing about a reduction in costs and prices for the benefit of the consumer. I have read the Bill carefully. In the first place, it does nothing to create, promote or safeguard any meaningful competitive structure in conveyancing services. In the long run it does not. Quite the contrary. The Bill has done much to reverse the gains painfully made at common law to break section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 which, when I was beginning my struggle against it, was section 20 of the old Solicitors Act 1957. While on the one hand it narrowly widens the class of persons who can provide conveyancing services for fee, gain or reward, that means nothing other than allowing a limited number of outsiders to join the club. In return for that largely illusory improvement, there are very real disadvantages.
The most overwhelming disadvantage is that whereas the solicitors' monopoly currently applies to just one small link in the purchasing chain—preparing and drawing up the transfer deed — under the Bill the monopoly provisions will cover the preparation of the contract for sale and all the other ancillary procedures. A few years after I came to the House in 1976, the famous case of the Property Tranfer Association v. the Law Society decided that all ancillary procedures were free from the monopoly and that only the transfer deed, which often amounted to no more than filling in the blanks on a standard form, was covered by the monopoly. Under this loud-sounding nothing of a Bill, the consumer will have cut the monopolistic ropes only to acquire chains. The Benson proposals, widely regarded as whitewash at the time, have come to pass.
Secondly, there is too much professional superstructure in part II. There is too much clutter, too much regulation and not enough simplicity. If the Department of Trade and Industry is following the Bill at all, for God's sake let it step in now and try to make some alterations. The new Council for Licensed Conveyancers is a pale copy of the old Law Society. We have seen it before. Its better half is just down the road in Chancery Lane and it has been responsible for many years for the unjust burden of conveyancing charges which has been a blight on owner-occupiers for far too long. I note in passing that there is to be no common council for all who do conveyancing. A conveyancing council ought to cover all conveyancers, but


there are to be separate arrangements for licensed conveyancers and for solicitors, thus ensuring that the new council is not just a carbon copy of the Law Society but a permanent poor relation. No doubt that was the intention from the start. I have no doubt, however, that the new poor relation will soon be aping its professional better and entrenching its own restrictive practices as quickly as possible, as professional councils always do. I have always regarded professional bodies of this kind as, in part at least, conspiracies against the layman.
My third criticism relates to a more basic weakness. The Government have put the cart before the horse. They have created a ton of professional machinery before there is any adequate job description or any settled idea of what conveyancers will be asked to do in the future. Everyone is saying that change is in the air with wider use of computers and information technology and improved procedures. Even more fundamental changes may be on the way. I know that the Government are seriously considering how Departmental practices can be changed to achieve greater expedition in these services. As an eternal optimist, I am absolutely certain that in the course of time this will lead to a technical simplification of the whole process of conveyancing so that the qualification needed will be minimal. The absurdity is that in the Bill the Government have built up a monolith of machinery, with all the bits and pieces that go with it, which technical change will render completely irrelevant within a fairly short time.
My fourth criticism—the crowning irony—is that, having erected this elaborate superstructure to ensure that everyone is properly qualified, the Bill sells the pass even before it gets into part II. Clause 5 actually makes it easier for unqualified people to do the work than was the position previously. Unqualified people can now do the work provided they are employees, partners or employers of those entitled to transfer property.
One of the abiding abuses of conveyancing over a long time has been the fact that one has paid for a qualified solicitor to do the work while up and down the country one gets his clerk instead. I would like to count the number of letters from solicitors' clerks who tell me that they have been doing the job for 10, 15, 20 and 30 years without supervision.
There has never been any case law on this subject. A friend of mine, who will now be called a licensed conveyancer, brought a case but it was stopped half way because one of the parties died. As a result, no case law exists on the record to say whether or not it is legal for an unqualified person to do the job. But I can now tell everyone who is unqualified, "Do not worry. They will no longer catch up with you because it is now legal under clause 5."
Two things have emerged from this. First, the consumer has paid monopolistic conveyancing charges to a solicitor but got the services of ancillaries in return. Secondly, and this is one of the great ironies, although the Law Society has always argued that properly qualified people should do the conveyancing, it never really cared whether Joe Soap did it so long as the qualified people took the profit from the transaction. That accounts for my cynical view of conveyancing over the years.
I am not the only person who suspects this legislation. On 5 April, The Sunday Times carried an article on the Director General of Fair Trading, who is legally charged

with looking at competitive conditions, and I know that over the years he has been interested in conveyancing. That report stated:
Sir Gordon backed up complaints by the non-lawyer conveyancers themselves that the Bill will not do much to increase competition. This is because the mechanism for licensing conveyancers will be so rigid"—
That is the word I have been looking for since rising to my feet. The Bill is not flexible enough—
that few non-lawyers will qualify. While he applauds the Bill's aim to protect the consumer he said that this was being achieved at 'the potential cost of erecting barriers which might be high enough to prevent many adequately qualified conveyancers from entering the field'.
That is particularly relevant given that conveyancing as a technical practice will become simpler rather than more complicated.
I wish to answer two points that have emerged from the debate. This is a debating chamber, and I listened carefully to what was said. First, scores of people have written to me since I had a letter published in The Times in which I set out my objections to the Bill. I felt that I had to do so because I have supported reform for so long that when it came, and it was the wrong sort, I thought it was incumbent on me to explain myself. I had scores of letters saying, "You are wrong. You have got the wrong end of the stick". The same has been said today, so I shall try to explain myself.
It is said that there already is more competition. I agree. but for how long will it last? The price of conveyancing used to be about 1·25 per cent. of purchase or sale. The fees have dropped. Conveyancing for any size of house can now be £120. I have even seen fees below £100. That is not altogether healthy. There should be a fair price for the job, not a ruinously low one.
I have been told not to worry and that, like spring, competition is in the air and that things will never be the same again. Prices have come down, I admit, but because of factors utterly outside the Bill. The Bill does not safeguard the competitive future. Trying to predict the future is always hazardous, but I believe that present competition is unlikely to last. The scale of charges was abolished in 1972 — the Statutory Instrument was considered in January 1973. When it came in at the end of the last century, the scale of charges was heralded as a competitive miracle. Nobody would be overcharged, it was said, as maximum charges were set down by law. What started as a maximum became a minimum because of restrictive practices and those who went outside the minimum were hammered under the professional rules.
The long-term results of this reform will not be the safeguarding of competition either. I follow changes in the conveyancing world closely, and wonder whether competition really is in the air. Two of the most promising approaches to bringing conveyancing into the 20th century by solicitors have come from groups of youngsters anxious for change and to reduce costs. Good luck to them. I refer to the Homebuyers Group and the Conveyancing Exchange. I have read their literature, learnt their aims, examined their ideas and spoken to some of the people involved. I am impressed by how they have tried to harness the benefits of marketing, attractive packaging and streamlined organisation and advertised benefits for the consumer. That is how the profession should respond to the new position.
What of the Law Society? Apart from the fact that the Bill started in bad faith which has soured my attitude to


it, it depresses me. In a debate in the other place the Lord Chancellor, who was talking about clause 1, but who could have been talking about any part of the Bill, because his speech on part II was exactly the same, said that clause 1
was demanded by the solicitors' profession itself through the Law Society, which is its accredited representative with my office."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 1985; Vol. 458, c. 824.)
I detect the influence of the Law Society in almost every stage of the Bill. I shall produce chapter and verse in Committee to argue that the consultation that took place with consumer organisations was perfunctory.
The Law Society has not only had a malevolent influence but is, at this very moment, trying to stifle the competition being created. The New Law Journal of 10 May refers to the Homebuyers Group and the Conveyancing Exchange, which represent people who are looking for new ideas, and trying to make an entry into the market in a controlled streamlined and low-cost way. It states:
The Homebuyers Group are complaining that they have received no response from the Law Society since submitting details of its scheme over ten weeks ago. This bodes badly for any speedy resolution of outstanding questions.
We may talk of competition, but outside there are powerful counterforces. The same counterforces have had a deadening effect on the Bill.
If I have not made an argument against the Bill in the time that I have had at my disposal, it is no one's fault but my own. I sit down, as I stood up—I oppose the Bill and I shall do so, if I am fortunate enough to be selected for the Standing Committee.

Mr. Greg Knight: I give a cautious welcome to the Bill. Perhaps I should say that I have no current financial interest to declare. My interest is based on past experience.
I have some sympathy with the comments on part I by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). My only regret is that part I does not extend to other so-called professions, such as estate agents and accountants. Hon. Members may receive many complaints about the behaviour of solicitors, but I am sure that many hon. Members will agree that those complaints are matched by complaints about estate agents and accountants, especially when they have managed to get their hands on a deposit or money belonging to a client from another source and have deducted exorbitant charges from it. I accept that the Bill cannot deal with that, but it is a comment worth making.
The impression given earlier was that part II was the first stage of trying to break down the solicitors' monopoly on conveyancing. It is not a first stage, but a further measure in a long series of events and happenings.
Restrictions on undertaking conveyancing on property for reward were introduced in the early part of the 19th century. My recollection does not go back that far, but I remember speaking to an experienced solicitor in 1967, who related a story about conveyancing in Leicester before the second world war. He was an articled clerk at the time. His principal had a completion to do in Loughborough, which is about 15 miles from Leicester. The completion was in the afternoon, so the solicitor took the morning train to Loughborough, booked into a nearby hotel, had lunch,

did the completion in the afternoon, stayed the night in the hotel, and got the train back to Leicester the next day. Of course, the client footed the bill for his journey and expenses, as well as paying his fee.
We have moved a long way since then. When I started as an articled clerk, scale fees were in force. Their effect was that charges were high and profits from conveyancing —there is no need to beat about the bush on this—were also high. But with the abolition of scale fees, an element of competition was introduced. Although solicitors were then free to charge as they wished, although they could not advertise, this started the practice, which has accelerated ever since, where by clients would telephone all the solicitors in an area and find out what their prices were. They would even quote the price obtained from one solicitor to another in the hope that he could meet or undercut it. For at least 10 years, conveyancing fees have been decreasing.
The problem is that, for a long time, many solicitors have used conveyancing work to subsidise other areas of activity. Although I accept that the bill is not the vehicle to put things right, I hope that in due course it will be noted that solicitors are still grossly underpaid for court work. After I was admitted in the early 1970s, I remember clearly a man coming in off the streets, bringing with him a summons for speeding, and asking me whether I would represent him. His family solicitor had said that he did not do court work, which was unprofitable; he did only conveyancing. To some extent, that is still the case today. Many solicitors are not paid an adequate return when undertaking court work, especially court work that is paid for by the state under the legal aid scheme. Far too many solicitors still see conveyancing as a means of subsidising other work. I hope that that will not continue.
The greater freedom of recent years, whereby solicitors are allowed to advertise, has given a further impetus to competition. I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), who said that the Bill had done nothing to lower solicitors' costs. Of course it has not. It is still a Bill, and not yet an Act of Parliament. History will show that his conclusion on this point was wrong. If, as I hope, the Bill is enacted, the setting up of licensed conveyancers will inject an additional element of competition. I hope that it will do so without sacrificing consumer protection.
It is right to sound a warning. We are talking about protecting the public and ensuring that they get a reasonably priced service and a job done properly. After all, buying one's home is probably the biggest transaction in one's life. It is not correct to draw the analogy of a shopper going from one supermarket to another and buying a tin of beans at the lowest price. We are talking about a transaction that requires skill, judgment and ability, and those who seek to dismiss the fact that those who carry out conveyancing must have some training and expertise are making an incorrect judgment.
I notice that many of the detailed safeguards are left to be dealt with by rules to be made by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor. It will be important to ensure, for the protection of the public, that conveyancers are both experienced and qualified to carry out the work, and I am concerned to see that this is what happens. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether the final scheme will ultimately come back to the House for parliamentary approval? I hope that that is to be the case.
I have serious reservations about banks and building societies being allowed to undertake conveyancing work. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who unfortunately is not here, and the hon. Member for Ipswich have said that we should not be concerned about this because many solicitors already carry out work for their client and for the building society at the same time. The fact that a solicitor may be getting two fees on what is essentially the same transaction does not necessarily mean that there is a conflict of interest.
The danger in allowing banks and building societies to undertake conveyancing work is that their prime aim is to

see that a loan is taken out at the rate of interest that they are charging. If someone is employed full-time for a bank or building society, the interest that he is looking after on its behalf will conflict with the interest of his client. The client needs to be advised not only as to whether good title can be deduced to the property, but on whether he can afford to take out a loan of that size, and whether the property is what he wants, and all sorts of ancillary questions. There is a real danger of a conflict of interest if banks and building societies are allowed to carry out that work.
With those reservations, I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I listened carefully to the Attorney-General when he dealt with part I. I thought that he was altogether too full of praise for the Law Society. His attitude was so uncritical that he described a Law Society rather far removed from the experience of many hon. Members and members of the public.
The Law Society is obviously aware that it is the subject of a great deal of public criticism. That must be why it commissioned the Coopers and Lybrand report. Therefore, I wonder why we are dealing with legislation instigated by the Law Society to make changes to the methods by which complaints are looked at, and the powers of the Law Society in relation to that.
It is likely that the further work that Coopers and Lybrand is carrying out will overtake what we shall do through the Bill. We may wish that we had not embarked on part I until the investigation carried out on behalf of the Law Society has been completed. Would it not be better to wait for the Law Society to complete this process before deciding on reforming legislation on the complaints procedure?
I cannot help feeling that it might be better to drop part I and await the results of the full investigation by Coopers and Lybrand, and then decide how to proceed. I do not suppose that the Attorney-General will accede to that request, but he must agree that there is at least some logic in it, as he may find it embarrassing to put this legislation through and find it overtaken by events.
I would have thought that the Law Society did not have that impressive a track record in this area. A few months ago I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute procedure to deal with complaints against solicitors and to set up an entirely independent system. The publicity that the Bill attracted resulted in my being swamped by an avalanche of letters from people throughout this country and abroad. They were concerned about how the Law Society had handled, or failed to handle, their complaints.
Although I am sure that some of the complaints had little or no foundation, others appeared to be compelling in their criticisms. They came from the rich and the poor and from those whose very lives had been shattered by their experiences. They had an enormous sense of grievance and injustice. It made me feel that the results of the survey, which was quoted earlier, were amply backed by those letters. Quite unusually, not one person wrote to me complaining about or disagreeing with my stand in the Bill. The measure was approved by the House, but it is now stuck in the system— as is the fate of so many private Members' Bills introduced under that system.
However, there was one rather amusing by-product. Sir David Napley, an eminent member of the legal profession and a past president of the Law Society, gave a lecture in February this year for the 1985 Conkerton memorial lecture at the University of Liverpool. It was abbreviated in the Law Society's Gazette on Wednesday 20 March. It is the only answer from anyone to do with the Law Society to the request for an independent method of dealing with complaints.
Sir David Napley said:
The latest attack on the profession comes from some left-wing Member of Parliament.
I take that as a compliment. He went on:

He has promoted a Private Member's Bill designed to take the powers to deal with complaints against solicitors away from the profession and into the hands of a statutory independent body.
That is accurate so far. He then said—and he goes on the attack:
Would his time not be better spent in promoting such a body to deal with the public's complaints against Members of Parliament?
He is talking about all of us, including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He continued:
Here is a body of people, of whom, on entering politics, no training, skill, learning or expertise is required; who are not required to demonstrate or maintain particular standards of integrity; who are subject to no disciplinary process for the management of either their constituents' affairs, or the public generally.
In other words, if it is impossible to answer the case against the Law Society, why not attack the people who are making it and have a good go at Members of Parliament? We are pretty thick skinned, so that does not really matter. All is fair in this activity.
However, Sir David went on to say:
One recognises that the affair of Glanville Davies and the mistakes which were made poured ammunition into the laps of our enemies.
He can say that again:
But that apart the profession's record for integrity, probity and ethical conduct generally stands very high. Just as one swallow does not make a summer, so one storm does not make a winter.
I suggest that there he has pretentions to enter the world of literature. He continued:
The professions' record for doing the right thing should, when they are attacked, be compared by the public with the politicians' record for doing the wrong thing.
No doubt our debate this evening will attract similar attacks.
I welcome the fact that part I contains some improvements in the methods of investigating complaints and the public being given redress. In particular, I welcome the provision for the repayment of fees. Nevertheless, I want to make six criticisms of the proposed system. The first has been mentioned by other hon. Members, but I make no apology for referring to it again. It is that the Law Society inevitably must have a conflict of interest between its duty to defend the profession and its duty to help members of the public when they have a sense of grievance against the profession. I do not see how that conflict of interest can be reconciled, and it certainly is not reconciled in part I.
Secondly, I regret that the powers given to the Law Society in part I are permissive. The society will still have the option of deciding not to proceed with a complaint, and it may take that decision on very wide grounds indeed.
Thirdly under the Bill—this point has not been made so far—the Law Society is given no general obligation to help the complainant. It does not have that obligation now, and the society's booklet is not particularly helpful. When writing to me about the matter generally, people have commented time and again that they feel that the Law Society has not helped them.
Complaining against a member of a profession is difficult, because the average person does not have the necessary skill or knowledge and the Law Society can too easily dismiss a complaint. If the society is to be left with this responsibility—I would prefer it not to be left with it—it should accept a general responsibility to give advice and help to complainants.
Fourthly, the Bill still leaves too many points at which complaints will be handled, if they are handled at all. I should prefer to have one focus for complaints so that the average person may know that if he or she goes there, the complaint, under whatever heading it might be categorised, will be investigated.
Fifthly, I regret that there is no provision for an arbitration scheme dealing with negligence when the sums involved are relatively small. My Bill suggested £2,000. It is too difficult and costly for the public to go to law to try to sue solicitors for negligence when the sums involved are small. They may be important to the people concerned, but they can be described as relatively small in the context of claims of this type. the procedure is too cumbersome when it permits the public simply to be told, "You have the right only to go to court." A simple arbitration scheme would be beneficial.
Sixthly, the Law Society should have a general responsibility to be more forthcoming about the complaints that it receives and what it does with them. The council's report for 1983–84 contains, at page 21, a brief mention, under the heading "Professional Purposes Committee," of the number of inquiries and complaints received. The Law Society has a duty to us and the public to be more forthcoming about the nature of complaints, the way in which they were handled and the outcome.
Although I am no supporter of the present method of dealing with complaints against the police, at least the Police Complaints Board—the successor body to which will, I am sure, do the same—analyses complaints and gives some information about what is going on. The law Society should do likewise, otherwise we shall continue to argue in the dark, as it were, not fully knowing the nature or outcome of complaints.
I would prefer, however, an independent system. I am not certain that we shall manage to achieve that by tabling amendments in Committee. At the very least, the Law Society should be more responsive and sensitive to the criticisms that have been expressed, and I hope that some of the points that I have made will find favour with the Minister.

Mr. William Cash: I welcome the Bill, with some reservations. I shall confine my remarks to part II, which deals with licensed conveyancing, and at the outset I declare my interest. I am a solicitor, and for about 10 years I have been a legal adviser to the Institute of Legal Executives. I played some part in the preparation of evidence to the Farrand committee. I am also a legal adviser to the Society of Company and Commercial Accountants Limited.
The Institute of Legal Executives and its members have played a significant role in the practice and development of the law for decades. It can trace its origins back as far as the 1890s. For almost 100 years, by competent practice, experience and examination, members of the institute have been involved in and engaged in the conveyancing of land in solicitors' offices. The institute was represented on the Farrand committee. For decades it has provided high standards of education, training and examination. The institute welcomes the Bill in principle and Its general objectives, but hopes that in Committee it will be amended in a number of respects.
Part II will allow persons who are not solicitors to convey land. The protection of lay members of the public

seeking advice from the new licensed conveyancers will depend upon the balance which the Bill strikes between the virtues of competition—but not a free-for-all—and the requirement of competence. The more home owners there are the better, but they must be sure that the purchase of their homes is properly conducted and with effective and full title. Conveyancing is not by any means as simple a transaction as some advocates of licensed conveyancing may suggest.
Part II provides for the establishment of a council for licensed conveyancers. Of concern, however, is the lack of criteria to be laid down by or through Parliament as to what the standards of competence and professional conduct of the licensed conveyancer should be in order to secure adequate protection for the consumer. Should this be left simply to the council and the Lord Chancellor under clause 34, as the Bill provides, or should Parliament retain more direct control over the rules, prescribing standards of training and education by way of statutory instrument?
The radical nature of part II is perhaps overlooked. The house buyer and, at present, purchasers of other interests in land, will be significantly at risk if the standards are found to be inadequate. Insurance will be no compensation, if things go wrong, for those who have lost their home. I am not suggesting that things do not go wrong from time to time under the present arrangements, but with this significant departure from the general rule that only solicitors may convey land. I think that public confidence must be maintaned in the new conveyancers or the Bill will fail in its main objectives.
A similar argument applies to the setting up of the disciplinary committees under clauses 20 and 21, to the code of conduct to be provided under clause 16, to the provision for indemnity and compensation under clause 17, to the accounts which are to be provided for under clause 18 and to interest on client's money under clause 19.
I accept that there must be a degree of flexibility and that it would be unnecessary for every aspect of standards and conduct to be tightly regulated by Parliament, but some retention of control, even as a long stop, is required. I have in mind provisions similar to those in section 27 of the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977, which reserves to the Secretary of State, after consulting the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, power to approve and vary by statutory instrument, subject to the annulment procedure, rules relating to the code of conduct and other matters such as the method of running bank accounts and the holding of moneys. The making of the rules under that Act is not by way of statutory instrument, but the rules come into effect only when approved by order of the Secretary of State, by statutory instrument.
It will not do for persons to argue that in practice this will not amount to much control. The scrutiny of such instruments in draft is available to the House and may be enforced, especially if the rules are pubished in draft before hand for consultation. Adopting a system along those lines will help to avoid unnecessary mistakes, especially in the initial stages of the development of the profession.
The Institute of Legal Executives already has in place a syllabus and well-developed and tried examinations. It is to be hoped that this will be found to be the most suitable course of study available to those who seek to acquire and develop the professional skills which they will be, or should be, required to have. The quality of service


properly to be expected of a licensed conveyancer ought to be that at least of the average of his class, including properly qualified solicitors and fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives.
I am puzzled about why intervention by the council in a licensed conveyancer's practice is apparently unrelated to tests of competence. I accept that there are provisions to control accounts and money under clauses 18 and 19. However, undue delay under schedule 4, paragraph 3 is no more important than incompetence or negligence, and I do not see why intervention by the council should be so selective. Why should not failure to comply with any of the rules lead to intervention?
I notice that under clause 18(4) only so-called "qualified" accountants would be qualified to give accountants' reports on licensed conveyancers' accounts. Licensed conveyancers will often not be limited liability companies, and I should like an assurance that there will be no discrimination against members of the Society of Company and Commercial Accountants by a denial to those of them who are in public practice of the opportunity to make reports on the accounts of licensed conveyancers.
It is ironic that, unsupported by European Community law or anything other than apparent convenience, a provision is included in the Bill which specifically enlarges the freedom of choice to seek professional advice from the legal profession, but which at the same time restricts the freedom of licensed conveyancers to choose their accountants from any firm other than one whose members come from one of the chartered bodies, and a limited range of other authorised accountants, by employing a formula for selection derived from company legislation which will not apply to many, if not most, licensed conveyancers. I should be glad to have an assurance that such discrimination will not be enacted.
Finally, I should be pleased to receive an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that banks and building societies will not be allowed to provide conveyancing services.
In most other material respects I welcome the Bill and support it.

Mr. John Morris: I am sure that I shall be encouraged by both sides of the House to curtail my remarks. I have little to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his clarification of the Bill.
Part I which relates to the discipline of solicitors is welcome as far as it goes. The tragedy is that it does not go far enough. There is enormous public interest in the profession and a substantial amount of taxpayers' money — a subject warm to the hearts of Conservative Members—is infused into the profession year by year.
The Law Society is the progenitor of these proposals. I ask myself whether they represent the Law Society's thinking now or more accurately its thinking 18 months ago.
The impression I have is that, in addition to the fact that the proposals contained in the Bill are inadequate, the timing is inopportune, because since the Lord Chancellor won a place in the legislative timetable — I suspect sometime last July—for one of his little ewe lambs,

matters have moved forward. We have had the interim paper commissioned by the Law Society from Coopers and Lybrand. I shall not weary the House by retailing the nuggets of information that have been revealed from that report. It is clear, however, from a perusal of paragraph after paragraph, that the majority view of people and organisations which have been interviewed by Coopers and Lybrand is that a radical rather than a cautious approach is required.
There is a substantial view that whatever process of investigation of complaints is set up, it should be seen to sufficiently independent of the representational role of the Law Society. That is the point which remains unsatisfied.
Without repeating the points that have been made time after time in the debate, I must pose again the question that will still be asked by the general public—how can a body like the Law Society, which has as its first and bounden duty to look after the professional interests of its members, have an adjudicatory role regarding complaints against its members?
Those roles are incompatible. The public will never be satisfied unless and until there is a division between the trade union function and the investigatory function of the Law Society. One of the matters Coopers and Lybrand pinpoints is how different are the arrangements in the medical profession, for example, where there is a division between the investigative and adjudicatory role and the representational role.
These proposals are untimely. Circumstances have changed. The proposals will satisfy no one. We will be coming back before many more years to set up yet another piece of machinery. Given that the Law Society maintains its concern and has commissioned at great expense Coopers and Lybrand to investigate certain aspects of its position, I wonder whether it is yet too late in the day for this part of the Bill to be withdrawn, for there to be more reflection and for us to have before us a more stable arrangement under which justice could be seen to be done regarding investigation on the one hand and the representation of members on the other.
I cannot see how both functions can be carried out by the same body in such a way as to satisfy the basic criterion of justice being seen to be done. Therefore, the proposals are inopportune. They will be short-lived and as sure as night follows day we will be returning within a matter of years to discuss more stable, more permanent, more effective and more acceptable proposals to ensure that the concern which undoubtedly exists about complaints is properly met. That is my prophecy, and I stand by it.
As regards licensed conveyancers, my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) can feel proud of the fact that their efforts have resulted in the monopoly being broken. I set out my views in the debate on the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. My interest is to ensure that house transfers are made cheaper and simpler. No doubt my hon. Friend is pleased that one of his ambitions has been achieved.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) pointed out that advertising in itself and the abandonment of the tariff have brought down costs. With the aid of those two factors and perhaps the catalyst of my hon. Friend's activities, we have gone a great deal of the way to make house transfer cheaper and simpler.
We are only beginning on this road. As in so many instances of law reform we have seen what has happened


in Scotland. As I understand it, solicitors are now allowed to set up property centres. They will undoubtedly move more and more into that field. We shall see whether solicitors enter it or whether the Government eventually endorse the commitment repeatedly made by the Solicitor-General in the House, and in particular on 16 December last.
But whether solicitors enter into the property field and the property shop, or whether the provision is eventually extended to banks and building societies, my prime concern, as I said on the Second Reading of my hon. Friend's Bill, is that the conflict of interest remains. It is not a point that is canvassed in the interests of solicitors; it is a point to be canvassed on behalf of the consumer. Having said that, I welcome the work that has been done by the National Consumer Council to try to resolve that problem. The difficulty it faced was in preparing its work in a vacuum. Until one knows the Government's proposals it is difficult to reach a proper judgment on whether the issue is resolved or not; but it is an important issue.
I praise what has been done already to make house transfers cheaper. I welcome the breaking of the monopoly. But on the most important commercial transaction affecting most people in the land, it is of the utmost importance that as consumers they are well served. I look forward to seeing how the Government deal with that question. I understand that the consultations have been about method. Many of us were not entirely clear about what the Attorney-General said. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will want to add something to make it clear. There have been conflicting reports in the newspapers. It is the Government who made the commitment, and we shall be interested in seeing and studying the results of the battle that is going on between the Lord Chancellor on the one hand and Industry and Environment Ministers on the other.
One of the results of the deliberations in the other place has been the dropping of the original clause 43. The purpose of the clause was to deprive those who sought the help of the courts in judicial reviews; they would have lost their right of appeal. In the other place their Lordships rendered signal service, as they did the other day in regard to the Attorney-General's reference on sentences.
The two proposals emanating from the Lord Chancellor's Department have lacked friends, therefore one wonders at the judgment of those in the Department. These are not party political issues but issues that have been canvassed and found wanting after considerable deliberation.
We shall look closely at the proposals concerning legal aid. The Bill has not, however, dealt with the funding of law centres and their plight. The Lord Chancellor tries to wash his hands of the law centres. He has stated that he has no statutory authority to fund them. With the limitation of expenditure by local authorities, we fear the closing down of the law centres; certainly we shall not see the expansion that many of us would like to see. The battle will continue as to who is to fund the law centres, whether it is the urban aid programme, the Lord Chancellor's Department or some other source. If Ministers are unwilling to take over the sponsorship of existing and future law centres, we shall return to that ' matter in Committee. I hope that we shall be able to get over the hurdle which seems to depress the Lord Chancellor and deprive him of the will that the needs to ensure that law centres are extended.
I could have gone on for a long time, but I think that I have canvassed some of the main issues that cause concern to me. In due course we shall return to them in more detail in Committee.

The Attorney-General: I should start with the points that were made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I notice that his ally in practically every other way, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weerch), did not share those expressions of annoyance and irritation, and even had a feeling of being let down.
Much time has been spent on what is not in the Bill, for example, the position of employed solicitors. Reference has been made not only to the letter written by the Solicitor-General but to the written answer by my hon. and learned Friend on 17 February. It is important that I should spend a moment or two going through what was set out in that long written answer to see what has been achieved.
We established the Farrand committee. The com-position was agreed with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, and, I think, the hon. Member for Ipswich, too. There were two limbs in the terms of reference. Farrand reported on time in September, which was very quick. The second limb was the report in January this year. Both reports were published. We said that we would bring forward legislation in the 1984–85 Session, and here it is in the Bill.
The second report, which was in great detail, is now being carefully considered. We said that we would discuss with the Law Society the scope for amending its rules against advertising, and advertising is now permitted, and widespread. We said that we would institute a wide-ranging review of the system of house transfer, seeking to identify ways to simplify and speed it up. That report was published today by the Department of the Environment. We said that we would speed up the extension of land registration and make additional manpower available, and that is well in train. Therefore, we have done a great deal on those matters.,
I have been asked not only by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, the father of this part of the legislation, but by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), about part II. The only way that I can make clear what the Government's and my view is, is to repeat what I said about three hours ago. It remains our intention to legislate in the next Session with regard to the position of employed solicitors working for banks, building societies and other institutions. That obviously means estate agents and such like. The form of that legislation will take into account the need to protect consumers against prejudice resulting from any conflict of interest and will be drafted in the light of our recent consultations on that subject. That is all that can be said.
I read again today the right hon. and learned Gentleman's powerful and effective speech on Second Reading of the private Member's Bill, in which he expressed the view that the Government clearly have in their mind, in saying that we have not yet reached a decision although we undertake to legislate in the next Session of Parliament. With respect, that is as far as we can go.
It is our duty to take account of the need to protect the consumer. Its importance was very much stressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport


(Sir I. Percival). But we shall legislate in the next Session. We are taking full time to consider, in the light of what we have learnt, so that we can see exactly what form it should take. There is no need for those decisions to be rushed because the vehicle for legislation will be available next year, and we want to get it right. I am sure that the anxieties that have been expressed this evening are deeply felt.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, stressed the need to have an entirely independent tribunal. It seems that various parties have been peering into crystal balls to foretell what Coopers and Lybrand will recommend. I do not know what its recommendation will be. As far as I know, it has not even reported to the Law Society as yet. If it recommends an entirely independent tribunal, it will do so against the background of the Government having a completely open mind. A fair amount of work would be involved as there is a great deal of inter-relation between the courts—negligence actions can come into court—and a professional body that is bound to be regulatory and to enforce its own rules. If the consultant's report contains the recommendation that there should be an independent tribunal, the Government will maintain their open mind.
It has been suggested by several of those who have participated in the debate that we are wasting our time with part I, as we may have to throw it overboard in the light of Coopers and Lybrand's recommendation. It would please me more than almost anyone else—I shall have the conduct of the Bill in Committee—if I could get rid of part I. Its consideration in Committee will obviously take a long time. However, I cannot do that. Even if we assume that Coopers and Lybrand will produce such a recommendation and that the mechanics can be properly formulated, as I am sure they can, it will take some time to find the right vehicle to implement it. If we abolish part I, we shall not have the less important improvements that will flow from it. Surely it is better to, have them than to have nothing. Even if we have to make changes by legislating again for an independent tribunal, we shall not have wasted our time in Committee by sending to the House a Bill which provides a measure of improvement, if not the great improvement that some believe the independent tribunal would provide. I am entirely open-minded on the issue, and so are the Government.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is especially concerned about employed solicitors—I feel that I have dealt with that matter to the fullest extent possible—and asked me to take up the issue of building societies making use of licensed conveyancers. The Government intend to table an amendment to the Bill that will facilitate the use of licensed conveyancers by building societies in the same way that societies currently use a panel of solicitors. Every building society has provisions within its rules which allow it to use solicitors. The amendment will ensure that the societies' rules can be changed quickly and easily. I hope that I have met the hon. Gentleman's point satisfactorily.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby was interrupted in the middle of his speech by the hon. Member for Ipswich. He told us that he intended to raise, on the next page as it were, the question of the solicitor who is acting for the purchaser and then acts for the building society.

First, the solictor is not employed. The conflict of interest that has always concerned us arises when the employed solicitor has an overriding duty to his employer. That is a problem that we must overcome when we introduce legislation next year. If the solicitor is not employed, he will not have a duty to an employer. Much more important —this is a technicality on which I have been briefed—a solicitor does not act for the building society until the terms of the loan have been agreed. He is thus not acting for both sides when their interests may be in conflict.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) spoke of the negotiations that I have discussed and pointed to the huge powers that the banks and the building societies have upon issues that involve conflicts of interest.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) criticised the commercial law, but the Commercial Courts have been so successful as to be almost embarrassing. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East knows, a great many contracts made outside the United Kingdom, in which neither party is British, now specify that the contract should be subject to English law so that the parties can use our splendid Commercial Court system. This has been something of an embarrassment, in that there are now fairly serious delays as a result of the success of the system.
The hon. Gentleman said that part I was broadly on the right lines but that we might have to look at it again in the light of the Coopers and Lybrand recommendations. I think that I have said all that I can on that aspect.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) gave an interesting illumination of why conveyancing fees had gone down, particularly in his area. I can almost see the effect on the old family solicitor in his black coat and striped trousers of the comment, "Young Mr. Jones down the road will do it for £140." I am sure that that is a very effective weapon.
The hon. Member for Ipswich made it clear in his recent letter to The Times that he intended to oppose the Bill. He has said that he will be back again to argue the case, and I welcome that. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and to the whole House that we are not in any way seeking to hold up employed solicitors to protect solicitors. We are doing this because we are concerned about the conflict of interest and we welcome any help from anybody. My door really is always open if anyone wants to come and discuss an effective way of removing the risk of conflict of interest. For example, there is the kind of suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in his letter to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
The hon. Member for Ipswich went on to suggest that the tribunal was too much an in-house tribunal. I remind the House that the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal, as opposed to the one that deals with less serious offences, is entirely appointed from members designated by the Master of the Rolls, one third lay people and two thirds from the solicitors' profession.
The hon. Member for Ipswich also said that the Bill did nothing to create a competitive structure, that it was too rigid and cluttered and lacking in simplicity. Interestingly, however, that part of part II was based entirely on the recommendations of Professor Farrand and his committee, which was widely representative of various consumer bodies, including the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council and a number of very


interesting people. That committee's report set out the very terms that we have put into part II and the work of that committee was entirely approved and agreed by the sponsors of the original House Buyers Bill.
There is one thing that one can always say about the hon. Member for Ipswich. There is no way in which his sincerity on this can ever be doubted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) wanted me to undertake that the final scheme would be submitted for parliamentary scrutiny. I am afraid that I cannot give that undertaking, but there is the safeguard that all the rules made by the council must be approved in terms by the Lord Chancellor.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), who succeeded in introducing a Bill which then got locked up somewhere, perhaps in the drains of the House, asked me again and perhaps more clearly than anyone else what will be the position if Coopers and Lybrand says that we have to go down a different route, and suggested that we should drop part I and wait for that report. I should love to do so, but I believe that there are advantages and improvements in part I and it would take some time to work things out even if such a recommendation were made by Coopers and Lybrand. Everyone seems so sure that that will be the case, but I certainly do not know what Coopers and Lybrand are going to say and I do not think that anyone else knows either.
I agree about the conflict of interest between the defence of the profession and the individual, but we must make it clear, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon, that there is no duty on the Law Society to defend the solicitor. It has a duty to defend the profession, and that should be done by enforcing the rules on conduct. That is how the profession is properly defended.
The hon. Gentleman's six points were extremely well thought out. Most of them require no legislation, and I shall personally ensure that they are drawn to the attention of the president of the Law Society.
I have already spoken about the rules and how they can be enforced and, indeed, tightly controlled by the Lord Chancellor. I notice that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon and his Front Bench colleagues could not resist twisting my tail about clause 43. That is not in the Bill, and it will not go in, but I suppose it was an opportunity which was much too good to resist. We need no longer worry about that.
I thank all hon. Members who have participated in an extremely interesting debate which went completely across party lines. I look forward to the Committee and to seeing as many of those hon. Members as possible with me. In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second Time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified— 
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required by the Lord Chancellor—

(i). for making grants to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers established by the Act, or
(ii). for making payments by way of reimbursement of additional costs incurred by parties to proceedings in consequence of the incapacity or death of any judge or other person presiding or assisting at the proceedings;

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under the Legal Aid Act 1974 out of money so provided.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]

Highway Code (Bicycles)

Motion made, and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: This debate, taking place during national bike week, provides the opportunity to call for greater awareness of the needs of cyclists, and in particular to ask that much more reference should be made to bicycles in the Highway Code when it is next revised.
The House will be pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be responding, as she has demonstrated over several years her obvious professional and personal interest in road safety generally and her concern for the welfare of cyclists in particular. Her achievements were recognised by the organisers of this year's National Bike Week when she was given an award for being
the person who has done most to bring cycling into the public eye".
It was not only as a result of the £1 million safety poster campaign last autumn, but her persistent and long-term commitment to cycling.
National Bike Week this year marks the centenary of the modern bicycle. It has been organised by six national cycling and transport organisations — the Cyclists' Touring Club, the Cycle Campaign Network, Friends of the Earth, Transport 2000, the British Cycle Federation and RoSPA. More than 400 events have been organised, including fun rides, competitions and cycle maintenance sessions nationwide to encourage people to take up cycling and to cycle in safety. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the activity over the years of the all-party Friends of Cycling Group to draw attention to the needs of cyclists at Westminister, especially the efforts of the hon. Member for for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen).
My experience of cycling is not as extensive as my hon. Friends'. Like others, I bicycled to school in my youth, although I am told that I covered many more miles in my childhood years as a passenger on my mother's bicycle. Sadly, she has now hung up her bicycle clips, having remarkably passed her driving test at a distinguished age to the delight and, I confess, great surprise, of her family.
Hearing my mother discuss the Highway Code with a granchild who satisfied the Department of Transport's driving test examiner at at similar time provided me with a clear example of the difference between the generations in their awareness of cycling based largely on their own experiences.
A lost generation of motorists who grew up in the 1960s and early 1970s never learnt to ride a bike, and, therefore, do not fully appreciate the hazards which cyclists face in, for example, avoiding a pothole in the road or negotiating large roundabouts. There is a special need to educate that group.
The present edition of the Highway Code was published in 1978. It was prepared earlier in the 1970s when cycling was at a low ebb. That might partially explain why, in the current edition, there is not one bicycle in any of the pictures and diagrams of everyday situations. Earlier editions gave- greater prominence to bicycles—the 1946 and 1959 editions show bicycles on the cover. It is only fair to add that the 1949 version has several horses and

carts as well. Highlighting bicycles provides a forceful message that the Highway Code is intended for cyclists like other road users and draws the existence of cyclists to the attention of motorists as having equal rights and needs while being specially vulnerable.
There has been a dramatic increase in the use of cycles since the low point in 1974. According to Department of Transport statistics, cycle mileage for 1974 was 3·84 billion km and was almost 50 per cent. greater 10 years later at 5 billion km. Cycle sales have virtually quadrupled in 15 years to 2·05 million in 1984. That makes encouraging news for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Employment. In 1983, more bicycles than cars were sold. It is estimated that there are 15 million bicycles in the country.
Growing concern about personal health, fitness and heart disease in the past 10 years have contributed to the growth in the use of cycles, as did the 1974 oil price shock which caused many people to reconsider their travel arrangements. The bicycle is now widely used as a quick and effective form of personal transport as well as for leisure. There is a clear appeal to conservationists—the bicycle has been said to be the most efficient means yet devised of converting human energy into propulsion. There has, however, been a corresponding increase in cycle casualties. Whatever might be the rights and wrongs of an incident, the cyclist is most at risk. Each year, some 300 cyclists are killed and 6,000 are seriously injured—one third of them under 15. There is good reason to believe that Government statistics based on police records significantly under record the problem.
A recent report by the Cyclists Touring Club, which has its headquarters in Godalming in my constituency, established that cycling accidents are greatly under reported. It found that only one in four accidents are reported to the police and that only one half of accidents involving hospital treatment are reported.
Much can be done in a local community to make cycling safer. In my constituency, I have been most impressed by the work of the Farnham Committee for International Youth Year, which has taken a constructive and practical approach to drawing the needs of cyclists to the attention of the public and those responsible for transport policy. Surrey county council has recently adopted a new policy containing measures to assist cyclists. The policy aims to reduce accidents involving cyclists and motor vehicles through the introduction of a variety of schemes such as the provision of cycle routes, dual cycle/pedestrian paths, recreational cycle routes and traffic management schemes.
I welcome programmes such as the national cycle proficiency scheme and RoSPA's "Cycleway" to increase education and training and to remind parents of their responsibilities. Families should be aware that giving a child a bike at Christmas, like a pet, requires their ongoing supervision and commitment. The encouragement of high standards of cycle safety and practice are crucial. Quite apart from the need for a sympathetic attitude from transport authorities and for education and training for cyclists, much more needs to be done to provide advice for motorists. A comprehensive study of the responsibility for cycle accidents was carried out by the Metropolitan police, who found that, in two out of three adult cycling accidents, the motorist was at fault. The all too frequent explanation of the motorist is, "I just did not see him." Safety for all


road users is centred on the Highway Code. A number of simple proposed amendments to the Highway Code could redress the balance in favour of cyclists. I congratulate the Cyclists Touring Club on its preparatory work drawing up those proposals. The short section in the Highway Code consisting of a mere nine paragraphs entitled "Extra Rules for Cyclists" should be strengthened. Equally important, is the provision of advice to increase motorists' awareness of cyclists and guidance on how to treat cycles.
At present that is almost entirely lacking. For example, when overtaking cyclists, motorists should be advised to give them at least one metre's clearance, and more, if they are travelling at speed. Particular driving circumstances in which cyclists should be considered should be highlighted. For example, on roundabouts motorists should be especially watchful for slow-moving traffic already on the roundabout. Too frequently a motorist notices a fast moving car but fails to see a cyclist. Similarly, when joining or leaving major roads and long slip roads, or when turning out of minor roads, a bicycle is too easily overlooked.
A motorist should not overtake a cyclist and immediately turn left. The bicycle is probably going faster than he thinks. That is particularly dangerous and the cause of too many accidents. Motorists should be reminded that at night cyclists are especially vulnerable. Many motorists fail to realise that cyclists can be blinded by oncoming undipped headlights. Motorists need to be reminded to leave space for cyclists, for example, between lanes of traffic on busy one-way streets.
Following the recommendation of the Transport Select Committees and the practice in earlier editions of the Highway Code, the reintroduction of a foreword to the Highway Code is required to remind all road users of their responsibilities for the safety of others, especially the more vulnerable groups — pedestrians, children, cyclists and the elderly.
I shall quote two paragraphs, the first of which is from the 1946 edition of the Highway Code. It states:
The provisions of the code are a simple summary of the best and widest experience. Each provision, whether it relates to a legal requirement or to discretionary behaviour, has been included because of its importance in preventing road accidents.
It is my sincere hope that all road users, whether pedestrians, drivers or riders, will study the Code and respect its provisions. To do so is, in fact, a moral duty. If observance of the provisions of the Code and the spirit of tolerance and consideration underlying them, became a habit, road accidents would rapidly decrease. They are a social evil which can only be overcome by the co-operation of everyone.
The 1959 edition states
Accidents on our roads do not just happen; they are caused —sometimes by a faulty vehicle, sometimes by road conditions, but nearly always by simple human error. These mistakes, which take lives, are made because in most cases we simply do not realize what we are doing until it is too late.
In other words, our conduct on the roads is not what it needs to be for present-day traffic. This H Code is for the ordinary road user: it sets out in the simplest language the code of behaviour which is a 'must' if we are ever to make an impression on the totals of road accidents. If we could ensure that for the coming year every road user obeyed the Code, we should save a great many lives—perhaps our own.
The Highway Code is a set of provisions containing advice on how to travel safely on the roads, and how to allow others to do the same. Everyone has a duty to care for all other road users as well as himself.
There is an urgent need to revise the code, to remind road users of their responsibility for the safety of others,

to reassert the need for mutual respect and tolerance on the road and, above all, to redress the balance giving greater emphasis to cyclists and their needs.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on her choice of this important and topical subject. It is important because cycling is a growth area, and topical because this is national bike week. I was pleased to receive the handsome chain wheel, to which my hon. Friend referred, and was sorry not to be able to go to receive it in person. I hope that we shall all continue to do what we can to ensure that safe cycling is well promoted.
The debate gives me the opportunity to consider the cycle content of the Highway Code. I must tell my hon. Friend that the Highway Code is but a part of the wide range of measures and advice that can be given. First, let me set out some of the background to our approach to cycling and cycle provision. Cycling has always been popular with the young. In recent years, it has become more popular with adults. I am told that bike sales now outnumber car sales. The reasons are clear. Cycling is a cheap, personal and healthy way to travel. For many local journeys, it can be the quickest. On those grounds alone, I am glad to see the increase in cycling popularity
However, there is a price. As cycling becomes more popular, so the accident toll increases. It is a major road safety problem. My hon. Friend drew attention to the depressing casualty figures. The numbers of those killed have remained at similar levels for some years, but injuries are increasing. As my hon. Friend said, injury figures are under-reported. That is why the Transport and Road Research Laboratory is carrying out a hospital-based study of cycle accidents for the Department. My hon. Friend quoted from the 1946 Highway Code. I noted with concern that in that year more than 800 cyclists were killed. We must never reach that level again.
There is no magic way to reduce cycling casualties. We are all involved in it. The Government's role is clear. We should set the framework for safer cycling, and provide information, help and advice to local authorities in developing their policies for cyclists. My starting point is the cycling policy statement in 1982. Since then, we have made good progress, including legislation for cycle tracks, regulations on cycle standards and new signs for cyclists. My Department considers the provision of cycle facilities on trunk roads each time it considers a trunk road scheme. There are cycling officers in all the regional offices, and we encourage local authorities to provide cycle facilities on their roads. There is a programme of innovative local schemes.
My hon. Friend paid tribute to last year's successful national publicity campaign. I also want to see cycleway encouraged further; that is why I am considering it with my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The more young people who are properly trained as cyclists, the safer they will be as adult cyclists.
We know that there is still much more to be done. I was delighted to host the recent conference on "Ways to Safer Cycling". There we reviewed progress and considered possibilities for the future. I hope that the report on the conference will stimulate further discussion. What I said then still applies. We need more initiatives. My


Department has given the lead, but, as cycling is a local activity, so the local authorities will wish to develop new initiatives.
But we need ingenuity, too. Many of the 21 innovatory cycling schemes now being introduced show great ingenuity, and tackle the problems to which my hon. Friend referred, including provisions to cross busy roads, negotiate junctions and cope with roundabouts, and the shared use of cycle paths. They all tackle local problems with local solutions. I shall always remain ready to consider proposals for new schemes and new ideas that will improve cycling safety.
Beyond those more straightforward measures are the five cycle demonstration projects, which offer comprehensive provision of routes for cycling in urban areas. I am pleased to say that the first scheme will be officially opened tomorrow by the mayor of Stockton-on-Tees. Others will follow in Canterbury, Nottingham, Bedford and Exeter.
Although we are doing much more now than we used to, and much of what I have said offers better and safer means of travel for cyclists, we must see what more can be done. But at the end of the day, what is better and safer depends on better and safer behaviour by all road users. We cannot say, as some cyclists do, that motorists must take all the blame for cycle accidents; and we certainly cannot say, as some motorists do, "If only there were no cyclists." We must live together on our congested streets, and there must be more give and take, perhaps not only between cyclists and motorists but among all road users, whatever their vehicles, or even if they are on foot. That will not be achieved by Government alone. It depends on each of us as an individual road user.
We need to do more than update the Highway Code. I know that my hon. Friend fully recognises this. Tonight she put a case for an up-to-date Highway Code with clarity. I am aware of the revisions proposed by the Cyclists Touring Club.
I shall say a few words about the Highway Code. In recent years, it has been revised about every 10 years. On past performance, we would be due to make a revision around the end of the decade.
The code is addressed to all road users. My hon. Friend makes a plea for more references to motorists' responsibilities to cyclists. She is right to say that in past editions of the code, there have always been such references. Indeed, in the current edition there are more than in earlier editions, although I accept that cyclists did not get a picture to themselves.
There is also more detailed advice in the Department's manual "Driving", and a picture, and in the advice to motorists planning their driving test.
As I told my hon. Friend in reply to her question on Monday, I am now considering the timing of the next revision of the Highway Code. There are two new factors. The first is our new ability to update the legislative sections of the code on reprinting. This power was introduced in 1982 and amendments have been made four times already. The second is our review of road safety policy. This is going on at present and will reflect the views of the Select Committee on Transport. The review will be looking at all possible ways to improve road safety. We are paying particular attention to the needs of the most vulnerable road users—motor-cyclists, pedestrians and cyclists.
While the review is still in progress, I would not want to embark on a major revision of the code, but for the future we should perhaps be considering a different format for the code, as well as different content. Perhaps it is on the respective responsibilities of different road users for each other's safety that we should be placing more emphasis. I shall include my hon. Friend's suggestions in my future thinking. I hope that we shall begin work before long. There will then be extensive discussions and consultations before a new code is produced. I assure the House that it will be a full revision. This will take time, for it will need to reflect all aspects of road user behaviour in today's—and tomorrow's—environment.
The debate has centred not just on the cycling content of the Highway Code but on the progress that we are making towards safer cycling. I know and recognise that we still have along way to go, but I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the role of the Department is only part of the picture. I agree with her that there is a case for revising the Highway Code, but that too is only one part of the picture.
I have taken my hon. Friend's specific points on board. I assure her that these will be taken into account when we move forward in our planned revision of the whole code.
Valuable work is being done by all the organisations concerned with cycling, particularly the CTC, which is making other road users more conscious of the bike and the need to give it a wide berth when overtaking it. As a result of that teamwork, we shall have safer, and therefore more enjoyable, cycling.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve midnight.